{
  "id": 3082025,
  "name": "Henry Seelye v. Eliza A. Seelye",
  "name_abbreviation": "Seelye v. Seelye",
  "decision_date": "1892-10-31",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "143 Ill. 264"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5350134
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/104/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804570
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5350134
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/104/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ill. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2804570
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/103/0651-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1349,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3551811321818376
    },
    "sha256": "21c260d27e4a7399d65bbd3fb64962b9e725be3efe7afed907079e5c3dbe6a4b",
    "simhash": "1:d0b248aafce5a94c",
    "word_count": 237
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:12.980922+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Seelye v. Eliza A. Seelye."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nThis is a proceeding, under the statute, to recover separate maintenance. The amount decreed to be paid' is less then $1000, and the facts are precisely the same as they were in Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651. Eor the reasons given in that case the appeal must be dismissed. In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 134, and in Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510, the question of jurisdiction was not called to the attention of the court, and no decision was made in either of those cases in that respect.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Winslow Evans, and Ered. S. Potter, for the appellant.",
      "Mr. T. E. Clover, and Messrs. Barnes & Barnes, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Seelye v. Eliza A. Seelye.\nFiled at Ottawa October 31, 1892.\nAppeals and writs op error\u2014when appeal lies from the Appellate Court\u2014separate maintenance. No appeal lies from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decree of the circuit court in a suit by a. wife for separate maintenance, where the sum decreed the wife is less-than $1000,\u2014following Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651. In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 134, and in Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510, the question, of jurisdiction was not raised or decided.\nAppeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District;\u2014 heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall county; the Hon. T. M. Shaw, Judge, presiding.\nMr. Winslow Evans, and Ered. S. Potter, for the appellant.\nMr. T. E. Clover, and Messrs. Barnes & Barnes, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 264,
  "last_page_order": 264
}