{
  "id": 3023619,
  "name": "Alfred S. Hillenbrand, Defendant in Error, v. Edythe Hillenbrand, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hillenbrand v. Hillenbrand",
  "decision_date": "1918-07-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 6,545",
  "first_page": "624",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 624"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3153,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7508897236865933
    },
    "sha256": "2e29baf5863319d9a36479381996b0662afb07f5b3de094a54e4bfeb29354d06",
    "simhash": "1:d8f48a2861df40dc",
    "word_count": 526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alfred S. Hillenbrand, Defendant in Error, v. Edythe Hillenbrand, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Judgment, \u00a7 150 \u2014 what must he shown on motion to set aside. On a motion to set aside a default or judgment, a reasonable excuse must be shown for not having made the defense; both diligence and merit must be shown, and it must appear that neither defendant nor his attorney has been guilty of negligence.\n4. Judgment, \u00a7 144*- \u2014 how affidavits in support of application to open construed. Affidavits filed in support of an application to open a judgment are construed most strongly against the party making the application.\n5. Judgment, \u00a7 148* \u2014 hearing of counter-affidavits. Counter-affidavits are properly heard on a motion to set aside a default or judgment.\n6. Attobney and client, \u00a7 76* \u2014 -when client hound hy lack of diligence of attorney. Want of diligence on the part of an attorney in the handling of legal proceedings binds the client.\n7. Divobce, \u00a7 17*- \u2014 what is not recriminatory defense to charge of adultery. Extreme and repeated cruelty on the part of the husband is not a sufficient recriminatory defense to a charge of adultery.\n8. Divobce, \u00a7 159* \u2014 when decree denying wife privilege of visiting children modified. A decree of divorce awarding the husband the exclusive care, custody, control and education of the children free from any interference by the wife should be modified so as to provide that the wife should have the privilege of visiting the children, and to fix terms and conditions for such visits.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. M. Kelly, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Arthur H. Shay, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alfred S. Hillenbrand, Defendant in Error, v. Edythe Hillenbrand, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 6,545.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\nI. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1268 \u2014 when presumed chancellor knew whether case was properly called. It must be presumed that the chancellor in an equity case knew whether the case was called under such conditions and circumstances as to require the counsel for defendant to act.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 132* \u2014 when discretion as to setting aside not disturbed. A motion to set aside a default or judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and, unless it appears that the discretion has been wrongfully and oppressively exercised, a reviewing court will not interfere.\nError to the Circuit Court of La Salle county; the Hon. Edgar Eldbedge, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1918.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part with directions.\nOpinion filed July 25, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for a divorce by Alfred S. Hillenbrand, complainant, against Edythe Hillenbrand, defendant. A decree of divorce was entered in favor of complainant, granting the custody of the minor children to complainant and dismissing defendant\u2019s cross-bill. At the same term of court defendant moved to vacate the decree and to be allowed to be heard on the merits, which motion was overruled and defendant brings error.\nH. M. Kelly, for plaintiff in error.\nArthur H. Shay, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0624-01",
  "first_page_order": 678,
  "last_page_order": 679
}
