{
  "id": 5020180,
  "name": "Charles Hickling v. Sarah Hickling",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hickling v. Hickling",
  "decision_date": "1891-09-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "74",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 73"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "108 Ill. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        831515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/108/0120-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1484,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.548619437958277e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48789215124124996
    },
    "sha256": "318169873c333eccf0791a3a57fbfa8deac5049a7d285d6a0116e5dd80368000",
    "simhash": "1:f29659f8a8795b63",
    "word_count": 247
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:55:04.940945+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles Hickling v. Sarah Hickling."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Sample, J.\nThe appellant obtained a decree of divorce from appellee on the ground\u2019 of adultery, and in the same decree the appellee was allowed alimony in the gross sum of $300; from that part of the decree allowing alimony the appellant has appealed.\nThe marriage took place on the thirteenth day of September, 1890, and on the seventh day of October thereafter the appellee was guilty of the act of adultery for which the decree of divorce was granted. The appellee got several hundred dollars out of appellant during the short married life and brought none with her. The whole tenor of the evidence indicates that appellant made an ill-advised marriage. i Under the facts disclosed by this evidence, no reason is perceived for departing from the usual rule of refusing alimony in such cases. The doctrine laid down in the case of Spitler v. Spitler, 108 Ill. 120, in its general scope is considered applicable to this case. The decree for alimony will be reversed with instructions to dballow the same.\nDecree reversed with instructions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sample, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Organ & Organ, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Holderby & Bleakley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles Hickling v. Sarah Hickling.\nDivorce\u2014Husband from Wife\u2014Adultery\u2014Alimony.\nThis court reverses that portion of a decree granting a husband a divorce from his wife upon the ground of adultery, which allows her alimony in a given sum.\n[Opinion filed September 11, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of White County; the Hon, C. S. Conger, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Organ & Organ, for appellant.\nMessrs. Holderby & Bleakley, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 70
}