{ "id": 2917884, "name": "Sidney Montgomery Irving, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clara Grobman Irving, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Irving v. Irving", "decision_date": "1918-01-28", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,478", "first_page": "318", "last_page": "321", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "209 Ill. App. 318" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "215 Ill. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5618057 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/215/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "279 Ill. 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4880993 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/279/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ill. App. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5416858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/202/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 U. S. 640", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3565826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/147/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 Ind. 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1308815 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ind/107/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 N. Y. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 29850 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/151/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 Pa. St. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 983244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/155/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 Me. 250", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 623927 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/91/0250-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Neb. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 2356885 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/46/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ill. App. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2947127 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/204/0409-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 337, "char_count": 4785, "ocr_confidence": 0.548, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.981040602429081e-07, "percentile": 0.7405897023339971 }, "sha256": "5053000ad3b82824391bdf9e3820d0eb324e073315e483f03e9d61a7f2e7339a", "simhash": "1:25613781181b029b", "word_count": 828 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sidney Montgomery Irving, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clara Grobman Irving, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nComplainant by his bill asked to have his marriage with the defendant declared void. Answer was filed by the defendant, and also a cross-bill alleging cruelty and seeking separate maintenance and solicitor\u2019s fees. To this an answer was filed. Upon hearing, the chancellor ordered the bill dismissed, and sustained the cross-bill and awarded the\u2019 relief prayed for. Complainant by this writ of error seeks the reversal of this decree.\nThe voiding of the marriage was based by complainant upon the allegation that prior thereto defendant had been married to Frank C. Grobman, from whom she had obtained a decree of divorce, entered in the Superior Court of Cook county on June 27/1913, and that the marriage to complainant was on June 27, 1914. These are admitted to be the facts by the defendant, and the chancellor so found. Complainant claims that under such circumstances the marriage of the defendant with him was in violation of the statute providing \u201cthat in every case in which a divorce has been granted * * * neither party shall marry again within one year from the time the decree was granted.\u201d Hurd\u2019s Illinois Rev. St. 1916, ch. 40, sec. 1a (J. & A. \u00b6 4126).\nHow shall this year be computed? Complainant argues for the application of the statutory rule of \u201cexcluding the first day and including the last\u201d (chapter 131, sec. 1, subsec. 11, J. & A. \u00b6 11102) which would make the day of the marriage fall upon the last day of the year of prohibition.\nWe recognize that a branch of this court, in Kahlo v. Kahlo, 204 Ill. App. 409, sustained a similar contention and applied this statute to like facts. We are not in accord with this decision. The statutory provision for \u201cexcluding the first day and including the last\u201d is for computation when \u201cthe time within which any act provided by law is to be done,\u201d which language is not applicable to the divorce statute referred' to. We are of the opinion that the situation before us calls for a different rule for computing time. Under the same statute, chapter 131, sec. 1, subsec. 10 (J. & A. \u00b6 11102), the word \u201cyear\u201d used in the statute on \u201cDivorce\u201d means \u201ca calendar year,\u201d and, in computing time by the calendar year, days are not counted, but the calendar is examined and the day numerically corresponding to that day in the following year is ascertained, and the calendar year expires on that day, less one. Among the cases holding this to be the proper method of computation are Migotti v. Colvill, 4 Com. Pl. Div. 233; McGinn v. State, 46 Neb. 427; Marcoux v. Society of Beneficence, 91 Me. 250; Nesbit v. Godfrey, 155 Pa. St. 251; Buchanan v. Whitman, 151 N. Y. 253; Vogel v. State, 107 Ind. 374; Taylor v. Brown, 147 U. S. 640. See also, People ex rel. Blachly v. Coffin, opinion by this court in 202 Ill. App. 100, in which we applied this rule of computation, and the opinion of the Supreme Court sustaining this method, in People v. Coffin, 279 Ill. 401. The same conclusion was reached in Trimmer v. Trimmer, 215 Ill. 121, although apparently by another process.\nIn view of these cases we are of the opinion that the chancellor was right in holding that the year within which defendant was prohibited from marrying expired on June 26, 1914, and that at the time of her marriage on the following day, that is, June 27th, she was free from any statutory inhibition. It follows, therefore, that her marriage was valid, and that the decree dismissing complainant\u2019s bill was proper.\nThe other points presented for onr consideration are based upon the alleged invalidity of the marriage of\u2019-the parties, and what we have said is sufficient to dispose of them.\nFor the reasons above indicated the decree is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely" } ], "attorneys": [ "George W. Pennington, for plaintiff in error.", "George L. Schein and Leo H. Hoeeman, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sidney Montgomery Irving, Plaintiff in Error, v. Clara Grobman Irving, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 23,478.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 172 \u2014year in which parly may remarry as calendar year. The word \u201cyear\u201d used in the statute on \u201cDivorce\u201d (J. & A. If 4126), providing that neither party to a divorce shall marry again within one year from the time the decree was granted, means \u201ccalendar year.\u201d\n2. Time, \u00a7 1*\u2014how calendar year computed. In computing time by the calendar year days are not counted, but the calendar is examined and the \u2022 day numerically corresponding to that day in the following year is ascertained, and the calendar year .expires on that day less one.\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Oscar E. Heard, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 28, 1918.\nGeorge W. Pennington, for plaintiff in error.\nGeorge L. Schein and Leo H. Hoeeman, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI- to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number." }, "file_name": "0318-01", "first_page_order": 346, "last_page_order": 349 }