{
  "id": 5825508,
  "name": "Mary E. Miller, Defendant in Error, v. Edward S. Miller, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,450",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 67"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3296,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.295878779002044e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33140754538198947
    },
    "sha256": "b95bc59ab6b54ea897a49879ac87951cc52a7fa3837d3e70ba6bca2531df6088",
    "simhash": "1:c3359c3e1f4ce038",
    "word_count": 563
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary E. Miller, Defendant in Error, v. Edward S. Miller, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divorce, \u00a7 106 \u2014when decree awarding alimony proper under hill. Evidence as to a settlement of the property rights of the parties to a divorce suit was properly admitted and a decree awarding alimony properly entered, notwithstanding no such relief was sought by the bill, under section 18, ch. 40, Rev. St. (J. & A. \u00b6 4233), providing that when a divorce is decreed the court may make such order touching the alimony and maintenance of the wife as may be fit, reasonable and just.\n2.. Equity, \u00a7 489*\u2014what relief granted under prayer for special and general relief. Where there is a prayer in a bill for special and general relief, the court may grant such relief under the general prayer as the allegations and proof permit, though the specific relief is denied.\n3. Divorce, \u00a7 106*\u2014right of court under chancery powers to award amount of settlement and interest in insurance policy. Where the parties to a suit for divorce enter into an agreement for settlement of their property rights, the court in decreeing a divorce may award the amount of the settlement entered into by them and defendant\u2019s interest in an insurance policy, notwithstanding there may be an adequate remedy at law, under its general chancery powers, as well as under section 17, ch. 40, Rev. St. (J. & A. \u00b6 4232).\n4. Equity, \u00a7 295*\u2014when replication deemed waived. Where an equity case is heard upon the pleadings and evidence without a replication having been filed, a replication must be deemed to have been waived.\n5. Equity, \u00a7 550*\u2014when assumed that replication was filed. Where a praecipe in a record in an equity case called for certain pleadings and other matters, only, and not for all of the pleadings and matters, and the clerk\u2019s certificate attached to the record stated it was a correct transcript of the record \u201cas per praecipe,\u201d held that a replication would be assumed to have been filed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Egbert A.- J. Shaw and James G. Cotter, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Albert B. George, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary E. Miller, Defendant in Error, v. Edward S. Miller, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 23,450.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1918.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 13, 1918.\nRehearing denied March 25, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Mary E. Miller, complainant, against Edward S. Miller, defendant, for divorce, charging extreme and repeated cruelty. From a decree granting complainant a divorce and finding that there was due and unpaid $780.65 on account of a settlement between the parties, which defendant was required by the decree to pay within 20 days and to release his interest in an insurance policy on complainant\u2019s life, and, on his default in so releasing, that a master in chancery should execute such release, and that all such should be in lieu of all alimony and a settlement of all property rights between the parties, defendant brings error. See also, Miller v. Miller, Gen. No. 23,782, post, p. 76, relating to contempt proceedings upon failure to pay alimony.\nEgbert A.- J. Shaw and James G. Cotter, for plaintiff in error.\nAlbert B. George, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 93,
  "last_page_order": 94
}
