{
  "id": 3017690,
  "name": "Kathryn J. McHale, Plaintiff in Error, v. Martin J. McHale, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "McHale v. McHale",
  "decision_date": "1918-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 24,050",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 400"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "sha256": "f232d6f5141e5a3a324db38f936ede5e0c381a328a68ae790be1eb2caea9c8d9",
    "simhash": "1:6ac38b30d40fb1fa",
    "word_count": 514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kathryn J. McHale, Plaintiff in Error, v. Martin J. McHale, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward J. Kelley, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Jarvis A. Blume, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kathryn J. McHale, Plaintiff in Error, v. Martin J. McHale, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 24,050.\n(Not to The reported in full.)\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph H. Fitch, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1918. Writ of error dismissed. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).\nOpinion filed June 10, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill for divorce by Kathryn J. McHale, complainant, against Martin J. McHale, defendant. The bill was filed on the 4th day of October, 1915. The cause was tried before a jury and on November 16, 1917, the jury rendered a verdict in which it found the complainant not guilty of certain charges made against her in a supplemental cross-bill filed by defendant, and found defendant guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty towards complainant and not guilty as to certain other charges made against him in the bill. The record discloses that a decree had been entered in the cause in favor of complainant on February 10,1916. On March 2, 1916, the court entered an order in the following form:\n\u201cOn motion of solicitor for defendant, motion to vacate and set aside decree continued to March 8, 1916.\u201d\nThe decree of February 10, 1916, was vacated March 20, 1916. On November 26, 1917, the court, on motion of defendant, set aside the verdict of the jury entered November 16, 1917, and ordered a new trial of the cause.\nTo reverse the order setting aside the decree of February 10, 1916, complainant prosecutes this writ of error.\nEdward J. Kelley, for plaintiff in error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Judgment, \u00a7 298 \u2014 when may he vacated, altered or amended. A trial court has no power to vacate, alter or amend its decree, except in matters of form, on a motion entered at a term subsequent to that at which the decree was entered.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 296* \u2014 when motion to vacate made during term. Order of court held to show that a motion to vacate a decree was made during the term of the trial court at which it was entered.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1289* \u2014 when assumed that rules of trial court were complied with. In the absence of affirmative proof, the Appellate Court may assume that the rules of the trial court as to the manner of making motions not of course were complied with.\n4. Judgment, \u00a7 279* \u2014 what is notice of pendency of motion to vacate. The entry of a motion to continue a motion to vacate a decree is sufficient notice that the latter motion is pending and undisposed of.\n5. New trial, \u00a7 125* \u2014 when action of trial court in granting not disturbed. A court of review will interfere with the trial court\u2019s action in granting a new trial only where it appears that a manifest injustice has been done.\nJarvis A. Blume, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 454,
  "last_page_order": 455
}