{
  "id": 5412344,
  "name": "M. F. Diesel, Defendant in Error, v. G. J. Diesel, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Diesel v. Diesel",
  "decision_date": "1916-11-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "554",
  "last_page": "555",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 554"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2073,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30251493426836856
    },
    "sha256": "13c02bad1af5f63924db80421db48102ffc164f00c88658ca05f2af25730810e",
    "simhash": "1:ca5fff7f028c6281",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. F. Diesel, Defendant in Error, v. G. J. Diesel, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Pfingsten and C. H. Gr. Heinfelden, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Sohaumleffel & Johnson, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. F. Diesel, Defendant in Error, v. G. J. Diesel, Plaintiff in Error.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Geobge A. Cbow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 13, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by M. F. Diesel, plaintiff, against Gr. J. Diesel, defendant, to recover damage's for the alienation of affections of the plaintiff\u2019s wife. To review a judgment for plaintiff for $3,500, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.\nWilliam H. Pfingsten and C. H. Gr. Heinfelden, for plaintiff in error.\nSohaumleffel & Johnson, for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Husband and wife, \u00a7 280 \u2014When decree of divorce is admissible in action for alienation of \u25a0 affections. In an action for the alienation .of affections of the plaintiff\u2019s wife where one defense was that the plaintiff had by his cruelty and atitfee alienated his wife\u2019s affections and that such alienation was not caused by the actions of defendant, held that a decree granting a divorce to the plaintiff\u2019s wife containing a finding that the plaintiff had been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty towards his wife was admissible.\n2. Husband and wife\u2014when instruction in action for alienation of affections of mfe is erroneous. In an action for the alienation of\" affections of plaintiff\u2019s wife, an instruction that \u201cThe jury are instructed that if you find for the plaintiff, in estimating the injury he has sustained, you have a right to take into consideration the wounded feelings and affections of the husband, if any,the wrong done to him in his domestic and social relations, if any, the stain and dishonor he has sustained, if any, the grief and affliction suffered in consequence of the act complained of, if any, and give damages accordingly,\" held erroneous as not confining the jury to the evidence.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0554-01",
  "first_page_order": 580,
  "last_page_order": 581
}