{
  "id": 868971,
  "name": "Robert Porter v. Mary A. Porter",
  "name_abbreviation": "Porter v. Porter",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "108",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 107"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1734,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "sha256": "78e4b256fb6489f7e6cc68480e3f702c2b857d606104dc7fec1ba5af0f9f9321",
    "simhash": "1:9fa26eb3f0ad92d8",
    "word_count": 307
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Porter v. Mary A. Porter."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from an order entered April 11, 1895, for the payment of $175 to the appellee for solicitor\u2019s fee, for services to be rendered in defense of- an appeal which was taken to the last term of the Appellate Court.\nA decree for separate maintenance was entered by the Superior Court in favor of the appellee, which was appealed by appellant to the last term of this court. Upon a hearing the decree was reversed and the appeal dismissed. During the pendency of that appeal an order for the payment of $175 as a solicitor\u2019s fee was entered by the Superior Court, from which order the present appeal is prosecuted.\n\u00a1Notwithstanding the pendency on appeal of the main case in this court, the order was one which the court had power to make. We do not think that in ordering the payment of $175 as a solicitor\u2019s fee, there was an abuse of discretion. Where the right to make such order exists, it is only for an abuse of discretion that the order will be set aside by an Appellate Court. Johnson v. Johnson, 125 111 150.\nThe order of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thornton & Chancellor, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Thompson & McCaslin, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Porter v. Mary A. Porter.\n1. Solicitor\u2019s Fees\u2014Order for, Pending an Appeal.\u2014A court has the right to make an order for the payment of solicitor\u2019s fees, pending an appeal of the main case, and it is only for an abuse of discretion that such an order will be set aside by an Appellate Court,\nBill for Separate Maintenance.\u2014Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nThornton & Chancellor, attorneys for appellant.\nThompson & McCaslin, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 103,
  "last_page_order": 104
}