{
  "id": 5004306,
  "name": "John J. Phelan v. Mary Phelan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phelan v. Phelan",
  "decision_date": "1890-03-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. App. 511"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "87 Ill. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5341116
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/87/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1557160347743624e-07,
      "percentile": 0.582542650169952
    },
    "sha256": "be0cae1dd0c662203b67b0927c733402b11dbb5db70aebca2a040141fa004d56",
    "simhash": "1:0b0fce6aafb661b5",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:52:12.584336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John J. Phelan v. Mary Phelan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, P. J.\nThe plaintiff in error filed his bill against the defendant in error for a divorce, on the ground of desertion.\nThe defendant, at the time of the marriage, was, and had been for eight or nine years, and still is, in business in La Salle in this State. There the parties were married in 1877, and lived together as husband and wife until 1884, when the plaintiff in error came to Chicago, and remained here.\nIt is probably true that he has several times requested her to come and live with him in Chicago, and that she has refused. He claims that he is entitled to a divorce, and cites Kennedy v. Kennedy, 87 Ill. 250.\nBut in this case the record does not show that the plaintiff is engaged in any business, and it does show that he has no home to which she can come in Chicago.\nShe is under no obligation to abandon a home and means of support, and children by a former marriage, in La Salle, and follow his uncertain fortune here, under such circumstances.\nThe decree is affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. George G. Bellows, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ho appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John J. Phelan v. Mary Phelan.\nDivorce\u2014Desertion\u2014Refusal to Follow Husband.\nA wife is not bound to abandon home, means of support and children by a former marriage, and join her husband in another place, it not appearing that he is engaged in any business, or that he has provided a home for her therein; and her refusal to do so, constitutes no ground for a divorce in proceedings instituted by him upon the plea of desertion.\n[Opinion filed March 24, 1890.]\nIn error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. O. H. Horton, Judge, presiding.\nMr. George G. Bellows, for plaintiff in error.\nHo appearance for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 508
}
