{
  "id": 5396579,
  "name": "Minnie E. Donnelly, Appellant, v. Hugh B. Donnelly, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Donnelly v. Donnelly",
  "decision_date": "1917-06-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,854",
  "first_page": "627",
  "last_page": "628",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "206 Ill. App. 627"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 2013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.848989183728895e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4175928789670749
    },
    "sha256": "8fd8aebd1e4d6b7567800c2c1957f7351fc16ab6e60486ef23166cfaf557084e",
    "simhash": "1:b96a36202e28b21c",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:48.967362+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Minnie E. Donnelly, Appellant, v. Hugh B. Donnelly, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles S. Knudson, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Minnie E. Donnelly, Appellant, v. Hugh B. Donnelly, Appellee.\nGen. No. 22,854.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at October term, 1916.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed June 11, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce on the ground of cruelty by Minnie Ei. Donnelly, complainant, and against Hugh B. Donnelly, defendant, and cross-bill for divorce on ground of desertion by defendant. From a decree denying leave to complainant to file an amended bill for separate maintenance, and dismissing her bill for divorce without equity, complainant appeals.\nCharles S. Knudson, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divobce\u2014when leave to file amended hill for separate maintenance is improperly denied. Where a complainant in an action for separate maintenance filed an amended bill asking for a decree of divore.e, held that the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to withdraw her bill for divorce and file an amended bill for separate maintenance.\n2. HusBAsrn Aim wiee, \u00a7 264*\u2014when evidence is sufficient to sustain decree for separate maintenance. On a bill by a wife for a divorce in which the complainant asked leave to file an amended bill for separate maintenance, evidence held sufficient to warrant a decree for separate maintenance on the ground of cruelty.\n3. Divobce\u2014when decree of separate maintenance will not he entered. A bill seeking a divorce and one seeking separate maintenance are separate and distinct proceedings under separate statutes, and where a bill asks for a divorce, although leave to file an amended bill for separate maintenance is improperly denied, and the evidence is sufficient to warrant a decree for separate maintenance, the Appellate Court will not direct such \"a decree to be entered under the prayer of the bill for general relief."
  },
  "file_name": "0627-01",
  "first_page_order": 671,
  "last_page_order": 672
}