{
  "id": 3019922,
  "name": "Mattie S. Hunt, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunt, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hunt v. Hunt",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 24,042",
  "first_page": "410",
  "last_page": "411",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 410"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1799,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "3111d5545151ebe8502c51bf4ce631680bcf3599d476803d43e5dfa3bc8f93ae",
    "simhash": "1:1d6745957da9a2b9",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mattie S. Hunt, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunt, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mb. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mb. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Adler, Lederer & Beck, for plaintiff in error.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mattie S. Hunt, Defendant in Error, v. Thomas M. Hunt, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 24,042.\n(Not to he reported in full.)\nError to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Kersten, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nOpinion filed June 10, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce by Mattie S. Hunt, complainant, against Thomas M. Hunt, defendant. From a decree for complainant, defendant brings error.\nAdler, Lederer & Beck, for plaintiff in error.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Divobce, \u00a7 66 \u2014 what necessary to render defendant in default after amendment of hill. Where complainant\u2019s original bill was for separate maintenance and thereafter an amended bill was filed seeking a divorce, proper practice requires a rule upon defendant to plead to the amended bill before he could be in default.\n2. Divobce, \u00a7 12* \u2014 when cruelty of husband not shown. On a bill for divorce on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty, testimony by complainant that ever since their marriage defendant had been guilty of excessive sexual intercourse is insufficient to support the charge of cruelty, the testimony of a doctor having been to the effect that he could not say that it affected complainant\u2019s health.\n3. Divobce, \u00a7 16* \u2014 what constitutes condonation. The offense of extreme and repeated cruelty asserted as ground for divorce, if shown by complainant\u2019s testimony that defendant was guilty of excessive sexual intercourse ever since their marriage, is condoned where the proof shows that the parties lived together for 16 years.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0410-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 465
}
