{
  "id": 5412572,
  "name": "Emelie Mundstock, Appellee, v. Herman Mundstock, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mundstock v. Mundstock",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,647",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 302"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3214,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.536,
    "sha256": "77319288adb6ce62aa2c14382049f82d7f7432d002a673ec4b3b05ccfb2a7683",
    "simhash": "1:88f1e307dc7fd79c",
    "word_count": 529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Emelie Mundstock, Appellee, v. Herman Mundstock, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles Werno, for appellant.",
      "Rathje & Wesemann, for appellee; W. Arnold Am-berg, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Emelie Mundstock, Appellee, v. Herman Mundstock, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,647.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Jesse A. Baldwin, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce by Emelie Mundstock, complainant, against Herman Mundstock, defendant, charging adultery. From a decree in favor of complainant and awarding alimony, defendant appeals.\nThere was introduced in evidence a postnuptial contract between complainant and defendant which recited that differences had arisen between them in relation to the ownership of certain property, one piece being held in joint tenancy and the other in the name of complainant alone, and, both being desirous of settling such' differences, the pieces of property were conveyed to complainant, she paying defendant $2,500 in money and assuming an incumbrance thereon of $1,400, evidenced by the notes of both parties, which complainant agreed to pay and to hold defendant indemnified from any liability therefor. As a further consideration of the contract, conveyance, the payment of the $2,500, and the assumption of the $1,400 of indebtedness, each released all claim in or to the real or personal property of the other then owned or after-wards to be acquired by either, and also agreed that the survivor waived and released all claims of dower, homestead rights, widow\u2019s award, or other' rights or interest in and to the property of which the one first dying should be seized at the time of his or her death.\nAbstract of the Decision.'\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 14 \u2014when evidence sufficient to- show adultery. Evidence held sufficient to establish defendant\u2019s adultery, in an action for divorce on that ground.\n2. Divorce, \u00a7 105 \u2014when postnuptial agreement is not bar to allowance of alimony in suit for divorce. A postnuptial contract between husband and wife made when in settlement of differences between them as to the ownership of property owned by them jointly and for the purpose of settling such differences, held no bar to the wife\u2019s right to alimony under a suit for divorce brought by her subsequent to such contract, and not anticipated by or in the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered into the contract.\n3. Divorce\u2014when duty rests on chancellor to award alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees. It is the duty of the chancellor, under Rev. St. ch. 40, sec. 18 (J. & A. If 4233), on granting a wife a decree of divorce for the fault of her husband, to award alimony as well as solicitor\u2019s fees in favor of complainant.\n4. Divorce, \u00a7 102 \u2014when amount of alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees is reasonable. The amount of alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees awarded by the decree, held to be reasonable and just when measured by the financial ability of defendant to pay and the necessity of complainant for financial aid in her support, and conformable to well-settled practice.\nCharles Werno, for appellant.\nRathje & Wesemann, for appellee; W. Arnold Am-berg, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest/ Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 327
}