{
  "id": 5194510,
  "name": "Charles F. Hirsch v. Anna Hirsch",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hirsch v. Hirsch",
  "decision_date": "1896-11-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "155",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ill. App. 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5189111
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/66/0579-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 Ill. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5446876
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/138/0634-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1315,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15621586432259177
    },
    "sha256": "3e03a1ad28bf9d74fe8db8596cb34e59408deb84ea0cbceaa976a6b23a356b52",
    "simhash": "1:65d7221bccfba028",
    "word_count": 216
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:34.097112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles F. Hirsch v. Anna Hirsch."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nThese parties are husband and wife.\nShe filed a bill for separate maintenance, and he a cross-bill for a divorce. The court sustained the first, granting a separate maintenance and solicitor\u2019s fees, upon the amount of which no question is made in appellant\u2019s brief, and dismissed the cross-bill.\nWe are now asked to reverse the decision of the chancellor who saw and heard the witnesses, whose conflicting and irreconcilable testimony fills nearly two hundred pages of this record. This can not be done without violating established rules, and the decree is affirmed. Jenkins v. Cohen, 138 Ill. 634; Barrows v. Barrows, Ibid. 649; Duberstein v. Duberstein, 66 Ill. App. 579.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. P. Tomlin and H. Von Horn, attorneys for appellant.",
      "R. R. Landis and Louis Boisot, Jr., attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles F. Hirsch v. Anna Hirsch.\n1. Equity Practice\u2014When a Decree will not be Disturbed on Appeal.\u2014The decision of a chancellor who heard and saw the witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal where the evidence is voluminous, conflicting and irreconcilable.\nBill, for separate maintenance. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Oliver H. Horton, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 30, 1896.\nH. P. Tomlin and H. Von Horn, attorneys for appellant.\nR. R. Landis and Louis Boisot, Jr., attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 152,
  "last_page_order": 153
}
