{
  "id": 5413886,
  "name": "N. C. Meling, Defendant in Error, v. Mary J. Lamb, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Meling v. Lamb",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,477",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 39"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1558,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4713122270835095
    },
    "sha256": "f9e81c2eb313924df1ec377d1ae850bec2a0f4a9f10f11cce1cec3c4d51e884d",
    "simhash": "1:43f78b56920fa21c",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. C. Meling, Defendant in Error, v. Mary J. Lamb, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McGuorty\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McGuorty"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Leon A. Berezniak, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Cameron & Matson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. C. Meling, Defendant in Error, v. Mary J. Lamb, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,477.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Ebt, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed November 14, 1916.\nRehearing denied November 24, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by N. C. Meling, plaintiff, against Mary J. Lamb, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover for a surgical operation performed by plaintiff, a surgeon, on the minor son of defendant, a divorced woman. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for one hundred dollars, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nIt appeared that the decree of divorce between defendant and her husband gave the custody of the son to the husband, and that at the time of the operation the son did not live with defendant, and was not subject to her control.\nLeon A. Berezniak, for plaintiff in error.\nCameron & Matson, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nParent and child, \u00a7 14 \u2014when divorced mother not liable for surgical operation on child. Where a decree of divorce awards the custody of a minor son to the father, the divorced wife is not liable for the expense of a surgical operation performed on the son, in the absence of an express promise, or of facts or circumstances from which an implied promise can he inferred.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}