{
  "id": 2942751,
  "name": "Harriet R. Miskell, Appellee, v. John Murray, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miskell v. Murray",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "567",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 567"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1682,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "sha256": "66f852aff4da12df294b86e418feb76b98d10c1589ce4063d121362bcb00d005",
    "simhash": "1:4a69d1a67d3f5abc",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harriet R. Miskell, Appellee, v. John Murray, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Crayton & Boyle and Acton & Acton, for appellant.",
      "O. D. Mann, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harriet R. Miskell, Appellee, v. John Murray, Appellant.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Breach of marriage promise, \u00a7 20 \u2014when evidence sufficient to show no promise of marriage. Evidence held sufficient to show that there was no promise of marriage between plaintiff and defendant, in an action to recover damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage.\n2. Breach of marriage promise, \u00a7 20*\u2014when evidence sufficient to show knowledge that party was married. In an action for damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage, evidence held to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff had knowledge during all of the time within which she stated that the defendant made promises to marry her that he was a married man living with his wife.\n3. Breach of marriage promise, \u00a7 2*\u2014when contract unlawful and not recognized. A contract of marriage between parties, one of whom is married to another party and known to be so by the parties, is unlawful and cannot be recognized in a court of justice.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. Augustus A. Pabtlow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Harriet E. Miskell, plaintiff, against John Murray, defendant, to recover damages for alleged breach of promise of marriage. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,500, defendant appeals.\nCrayton & Boyle and Acton & Acton, for appellant.\nO. D. Mann, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0567-01",
  "first_page_order": 593,
  "last_page_order": 593
}