{
  "id": 5445612,
  "name": "Frank A. Crittenden v. Elizabeth C. Crittenden",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crittenden v. Crittenden",
  "decision_date": "1891-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "138 Ill. 511"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 2132,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4721949040272232
    },
    "sha256": "0cf9be57c4ce87b4fb46c5a30564c0e64292fa894d664acdba781fc30ee9e897",
    "simhash": "1:902a9b93cabdced3",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:24.779386+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank A. Crittenden v. Elizabeth C. Crittenden."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis was a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of Cook county, by Elizabeth C. Crittenden, against Frank A. Crittenden, for separate maintenance, under section 22, chapter 68, of the Eevised Statutes. Pending the proceeding, the complainant filed a petition for alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees pendente lite. Affidavits were filed in support of the petition, and counter-affidavits were also filed by the defendant, and upon the hearing of the petition the court entered an order requiring the defendant to pay complainant six dollars per week alimony pending the suit, and twenty-five dollars to complainant\u2019s solicitor. From this order or judgment of the circuit court an appeal was taken to the Appellate Court, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, and to reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.\nThe record contains no certificate from a majority of the Appellate judges that the ease involves questions of law of such importance, on account of principal or collateral interests, that it should be passed upon by this court. The amount involved is less than $1000. Under the statute, therefore, in a case of this character the judgment of the Appellate Court is final, and no appeal will lie.\nThe appeal will be dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Shuman & Defrees, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Oliver & Showalter, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank A. Crittenden v. Elizabeth C. Crittenden.\nFiled at Ottawa October 31, 1891.\nAppeal\u2014as to amount involved. No appeal lies from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming an order or decree for the allowance of temporary alimony and solicitor\u2019s fees, on a bill for separate maintenance, when the amount of the judgment is less than $1000, unless the Appellate Court shall certify that the case involves questions of law of such importance, on account of principal or collateral interests, that :it ought to be passed upon by this court.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the First District\u2014. ' heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lorin C. Collins, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Shuman & Defrees, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Oliver & Showalter, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 511,
  "last_page_order": 512
}