{
  "id": 4968830,
  "name": "Mary E. Younkin v. W. W. Essick",
  "name_abbreviation": "Younkin v. Essick",
  "decision_date": "1889-01-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 575"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        863725
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/23/0118-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1885,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.444,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0613217317312152e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5571763064178645
    },
    "sha256": "f07f125c7112ccac0d798af8f03b28df7687f4e56336a5ea1e1f22a0b52673ed",
    "simhash": "1:2e6c1ec818b5e6a3",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:26:47.112254+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary E. Younkin v. W. W. Essick."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Beeves, J.\nThis suit was brought by appellee to recover from appellant the amount of a bill for medical services rendered the appellant\u2019s husband and minor child, under the statute which provides that \u201c The expenses of the family and of the education of the children shall be chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife, or either of them, in favor of creditors therefor, and in relation thereto they may be sued jointly or separately.\u201d\nIt is contended that medical services rendered to the husband are not a family expense within the meaning of this statute. This question is settled adversely to appellant as far as this court can settle it, in the ease of Hudson v. King Brothers, 23 Ill. App. 118, and in the case of Sarah Glaubensklee v. Lyman. W. Low (ante p. 408).\nIn the latter case the demand against the wife was for medical services rendered the husband in his lifetime, the same as in this case.\nIt appears in this case that the wife has property; which meets what the writer of this opinion has been inclined to hold should be shown, to entitle a plaintiff to recover against the wife as for a family expense\u2014namely, that she has property to be charged. It should, however, be stated that this view is not shared by the other members of the court, nor is it advanced as the confirmed view of the writer.\nThe judgment of the County Court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Beeves, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Geo. WV Smith and Johst Herbert, for appellants.",
      "Mr. J. B. Mayham, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary E. Younkin v. W. W. Essick.\nHusband and. Wife\u2014Family Expenses\u2014Medical Attendance\u2014Statute \u2014Existence of Property to be Charged.\nMedical services rendered to a husband and minor child are \u201c family expenses\u201d and chargeable upon the property of husband and wife, or either of them.\n[Opinion filed January 10, 1889.]\nAppeal from the County Court of Jackson County; the Hon. W. W. Bake, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Geo. WV Smith and Johst Herbert, for appellants.\nMr. J. B. Mayham, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 571,
  "last_page_order": 572
}
