{
  "id": 5405998,
  "name": "Sarah L. Mead, Appellee, v. George H. Mead. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Impleaded, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mead v. Mead",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-16",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,765",
  "first_page": "327",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 327"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4333,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32297867559073906
    },
    "sha256": "60aa44ac45084b9e89f0b718e658cb09a27c92775e68927d8b088e05e9871fb6",
    "simhash": "1:c63f69eecd9ca1da",
    "word_count": 713
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sarah L. Mead, Appellee, v. George H. Mead. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Impleaded, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 22 \u2014what is essential to jurisdiction of court to enter decree of alimony. Without personal service upon or appearance hy the defendant in a suit for divorce brought by the wife, the court is without jurisdiction to enter a decree for alimony, even though the defendant has property within the court\u2019s jurisdiction.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 6*\u2014when decree in personam cannot be entered. Without personal service upon or appearance by a party, no money decree in personam against him can be entered.\n3. Costs, \u00a7 1*\u2014when judgment for cannot be entered. A judgment for costs cannot be entered against a party not personally served or appearing.\n4. Divorce\u2014when right to alimony ceases. Upon death of a husband his wife\u2019s right to alimony ceases.\n5. Divorce\u2014when order allowing alimony is void as being without jurisdiction. An order allowing alimony rendered after the husband\u2019s death is void and without jurisdiction, as the right depends upon the existence of a valid marital relation.\n6. Divorce\u2014when order relating to alimony is void as bging without jurisdiction. Where an order was entered subsequent to a decree for divorce without personal service upon or appearance by the divorced husband relative to alimony and its allowance and collection out of a certain judgment recovered' by him, such order field to be void as having been entered without jurisdiction.\n7. Divorce\u2014when decree upon petition for allowance of alimony is void as being entered without jurisdiction. Where a decree was entered upon a petition for allowance of alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees and for payment of same out of a certain judgment recovered by the husband, defendant in the divorce suit, finding that certain assignments of said judgment were n\u00bbll and void, and without personal service upon or appearance hy the assignees, such decree held to be void as being entered without jurisdiction.\n8. Judgment, \u00a7 576*\u2014when of foreign court entitled to full faith . and credit. Where a party intervened in a suit brought in another State by the assignee of a certain judgment to enforce same and also brought an independent suit in such other State against such assignee seeking to have the assignment declared invalid, decree entered in such foreign suits held entitled, under the United States Constitution, art. IV, sec. 1, to full faith and credit in a suit brought by such party in this State to set aside said assignment.\n9. Interpleader\u2014who may not be required to interplead. A party resident in one State cannot be required to interplead in a suit instituted in another State.\n10. Appeal and ebbor\u2014when decree in which whole circuit bench is unanimous should be reversed,. Even if the whole circuit bench is unanimous in the entry of a decree which they are without jurisdiction to enter, it should be as readily reversed as if such error had been committed by but one member of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Irving Herriott, for appellant; William G. Wheeler, of counsel.",
      "B. M. Shaffner, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sarah L. Mead, Appellee, v. George H. Mead. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Impleaded, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,765.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George A. Kersteu, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Sarah L. Mead, complainant, against George H. Mead, defendant, for divorce for drunkenness. The Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company impleaded by petition filed by complainant subsequent to decree for divorce, claiming that the railway company was indebted to defendant in the sum of $7,000, and that complainant was entitled to be paid permanent alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees out of that fund. From a decree rendered on said petition setting aside certain assignments by defendant of a certain judgment for $4,600.84 recovered by him against said company as fraudulent and void assignments, and ordering the company to pay complainant $2,500, theretofore allowed her by former decree as alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees, within ten days, the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company appeals.\nIrving Herriott, for appellant; William G. Wheeler, of counsel.\nB. M. Shaffner, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0327-01",
  "first_page_order": 355,
  "last_page_order": 357
}