{
  "id": 2961376,
  "name": "Nellie Cash, Appellee, v. Arthur W. Cash, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cash v. Cash",
  "decision_date": "1916-04-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "151",
  "last_page": "152",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 Ill. App. 151"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1929,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.307590160878067e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38798130701828565
    },
    "sha256": "d6ad79f9e65e305794f458cf26da291e29b681bdd05db1188c3a7ad756d8fef3",
    "simhash": "1:896d11b3d98f36b8",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:04.845486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nellie Cash, Appellee, v. Arthur W. Cash, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n4. Husband and wife, \u00a7 265*\u2014when decree for payment of solicitors\u2019 fees in separate maintenance proceedings erroneous. A decree in separate maintenance proceedings held erroneous in making solicitors\u2019 fees payable to the clerk of the court for the use of the complainant\u2019s solicitors, as it should have required the money to be paid to complainant or to the clerk for her use.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baldwin & Caret, for appellant.",
      "Buckingham, McDavid & Monroe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nellie Cash, Appellee, v. Arthur W. Cash, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 228 \u2014when offer to take wife back ineffectual. In separate maintenance proceedings, the defendant\u2019s offer to receive the complainant back as his wife was held coupled with so many conditions and limitations that no self-respecting woman could comply therewith and that she was not compelled to accept it.\n2. Husband and wife, \u00a7 249*\u2014when allowance for solicitors\u2019 fees not excessive. Allowance of one hundred dollars as solicitors\u2019 fees in a separate maintenance proceeding, held not excessive.\n3. Husband and wife, \u00a7 265*\u2014when decree for lien on real estate in separate maintenance proceedings proper. A decree in separate maintenance proceedings held proper in making allowances of alimony and solicitors\u2019 fees a lien on defendant\u2019s real estate and household furniture.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed April 21, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for separate maintenance by Nellie Cash, complainant, against Arthur W. Cash, defendant. From a decree for complainant, defendant appeals.\nBaldwin & Caret, for appellant.\nBuckingham, McDavid & Monroe, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0151-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}