{
  "id": 5121429,
  "name": "Jetta Robinson v. Isaac S. Robinson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1893-07-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "414",
  "last_page": "415",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 414"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "123 Ill. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2920956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/123/0104-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 576",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5026316
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0576-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. App. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        859885
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/37/0621-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6023970895600477
    },
    "sha256": "43aa746fe20801a34f53bb5be7c8dd15663df1650a64c0269aeec44c58d244af",
    "simhash": "1:ef9a9e551d7ff088",
    "word_count": 535
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:42.711650+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jetta Robinson v. Isaac S. Robinson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion oe the Court,\nGary, P. J.\nThe defendant in error filed a bill for divorce from his wife, the plaintiff in error.\nThe decree recites that the cause was heard upon the bill of complaint, the answer, replication, cross-bill, answer and replication, \u201c proofs taken in said cause and testimony of witnesses taken in open court.\u201d\nThe record here shows nothing of this \u201c testimony.\u201d The decree finds that she willfully deserted and absented herself from him, without any reasonable cause, for the space of two years before the commencement of this suit, as charged in the bill. In the absence from the record here, of the testimony, that finding can not be disturbed. Frink v. Neal, 37 Ill. App. 621.\nThe decree also finds that he intrusted to her at various times for safe keeping various sums of money, amounting in all to \u00a72,000 belonging to him, which she commingled with her own money, and with the w'hole bought some real estate, and improved it, and the decree directs her to pay him that sum and awards execution. It also declares a lien upon the real estate, and provides for a sale of it, in default of payment.\nThe only allegations of the bill relating to money are that he bought the real estate and paid $4,200 for it, with his own money; that the title was taken in her name in trust for him; and that with his own money he paid for the improvements, between $9,000 and $10,000.\nThe allegations of the bill are so unlike the finding in the decree, as to the money, that the decree can not stand. Brant v. Hutchinson, 40 Ill. App. 576; Quinn v. McMahan, Ibid. 593; Bremer v. Calumet, etc., Co., 123 Ill. 104.\nIf the proof sustained the finding in the decree as to the money, it only showed a cause of action in assumpsit for money lent, or had and received, nothing calling for the aid of a court of equity.\nSo much of the decree as divorces the parties is affirmed; that part awarding to the defendant in error $2,000, to be paid by the plaintiff in error is reversed, but without cost to either party.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, P. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Allan 0. Story, attorney for plaintiff in error.",
      "Jesse Cox and Jens L. Christensen, attorneys for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jetta Robinson v. Isaac S. Robinson.\n1. Degrees\u2014Inconsistent with the Bill.\u2014The findings of a decree must be consistent with the allegations of the bill.\n2. Decrees\u2014Recitals and Evidence.\u2014Where a decree recites that the \u201c cause was heard upon the bill of complaint, the answer, replication, cross-bill, answer and replication thereto, proofs taken in said cause and testimony of witnesses taken in open court,\u201d but no testimony is shown in the record, the findings of the decree can not be disturbed.\nMemorandum.\u2014Divorce. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. Bill for divorce; answer and replication; cross-bill, answer and replication; decree for complainant; error by defendant. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893, and affirmed in part and reversed in part.\nOpinion filed July 1, 1893.\nThe opinion states the case.\nAllan 0. Story, attorney for plaintiff in error.\nJesse Cox and Jens L. Christensen, attorneys for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0414-01",
  "first_page_order": 410,
  "last_page_order": 411
}