{
  "id": 5102775,
  "name": "Rudolph Gerber v. Rebecca Gerber",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gerber v. Gerber",
  "decision_date": "1894-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "370",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5025959
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/40/0536-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1553521074008562
    },
    "sha256": "2133af737eebf004caa22a00ae4d1e676fa62feccc2597a7aaa88ebb85d19743",
    "simhash": "1:f75164035cafeefb",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rudolph Gerber v. Rebecca Gerber."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appellee filed this bill for divorce charging extreme and repeated cruelty.\nThe court upon conflicting testimony, seeing the witnesses (Burt v. Burt, 40 Ill. App. 536), found \u201c that all tl e material facts alleged in said bill are true, and that the defendant has been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty as therein set forth,\u201d and upon that entered a decree for a divorce, and that she be allowed to resume her former name. Mo alimony, no custody of children, not even her costs in the court below (for the decree is silent as to costs) are involved; but she was a widow with some money, and he has none.\nHer bill states that she once before filed a bill for/divorce from him ivhich \u201c she consented to dismiss,\u201d but whether she ever did dismiss it her bill does not state; and his answer to the present bill \u201c denies each and every allegation therein contained, except as to the fact of said marriage having taken place between these parties.\u201d Mo record of any former suit is in evidence. There is but a slender foundation for the argument of the appellee as to the effect of a former suit.\nThere is no ground for disturbing the decree appealed from and it is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellant.",
      "Walker & Davis, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rudolph Gerber v. Rebecca Gerber.\n1. Defenses\u2014Former Suit Pending.\u2014Where a wife in a bill for divorce states that she once before filed a bill for the same purpose, which \u201c she consented to dismiss,\u201d but whether she ever did dismiss it her bill does not state, and in his answer the husband \u201c denies each and every allegation therein contained except as to the fact of said marriage having taken place between these parties,\u201d no record of any former suit being in evidence, it is not a sufficient showing of a former suit pending.\nMemorandum.\u2014Bill for divorce. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. William G. Ewing, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nB. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellant.\nWalker & Davis, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0370-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 369
}