{
  "id": 2926977,
  "name": "Alma Heizer et al., Defendants in Error, v. John W. Heizer, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heizer v. Heizer",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,052",
  "first_page": "127",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 127"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "sha256": "462206fefd289e6d1272235c5efe91ff3b2eef7047a73800da4bc9576423c9c9",
    "simhash": "1:584b4f87410db3fa",
    "word_count": 262
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alma Heizer et al., Defendants in Error, v. John W. Heizer, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. A. Buresh and Otto Wadewitz, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendants in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alma Heizer et al., Defendants in Error, v. John W. Heizer, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,052.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Thomson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1917.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1917.\nRehearing denied July 16, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce by Alma Heizer, complainant, against John W. Heizer, defendant. By this writ of error complainant seeks to reverse a decree allowing solicitors\u2019 fees. This case is similar in every material respect to Heizer v. Heizer, ante, p. 126.\nG. A. Buresh and Otto Wadewitz, for plaintiff in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divobcb, \u00a7 142 \u2014 when defendant not prosecuting appeal required to pay solicitors\u2019 fees for defending appeal. The nonprosecution of an appeal taken by and allowed a defendant in a divorce case will not relieve him from the payment of solicitors\u2019 fees allowed complainant to defend such appeal, his proper course being to withdraw his appeal before the chancellor and to move for the vacation of the order allowing such fees.\n2. Divobcb, \u00a7 143* \u2014 who may have allowance of solicitors\u2019 fees. The allowance of solicitors\u2019 fees in a divorce suit must be made to the wife and not to her solicitors. Following Heizer v. Heizer, ante, p. 126.\nNo appearance for defendants in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0127-01",
  "first_page_order": 153,
  "last_page_order": 154
}