{
  "id": 2453923,
  "name": "Margaret Heatherwick v. James Heatherwick",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heatherwick v. Heatherwick",
  "decision_date": "1863-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "74",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. 73"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "sha256": "25f6f69c7ee5649c4f59ec8cae3a7cdea1dd28a4138972ab5825d65e18a314c4",
    "simhash": "1:e75eae2bd83a4ebc",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:57.113711+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Margaret Heatherwick v. James Heatherwick."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Caton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nThe only question in this case is, had the County Court jurisdiction to grant this divorce. The statute confers jurisdiction upon the County Court \u201cin all civil cases, suits and actions and proceedings when the amount due and claimed, or the value of the property, shall not exceed the sum of $1,000.\u201d 'This, we think, very clearly refers to proceedings of a pecuniary character, .where money is due or claimed, or where the title to property is in controversy. Such is not the character of a proceeding for divorce. Incidentally, pecuniary considerations may arise, but the primary object' of the suit is not pecuniary, and very often no pecuniary questions arise.'\nThe decree is reversed and the bill dismissed.\nDecree reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Caton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Irwin and Snowhook, for the plaintiff in error;",
      "Messrs. Lelands and Blanchard, for the defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Margaret Heatherwick v. James Heatherwick.\nCounty Court of Grundy county\u2014its jurisdiction. The County Court of Grundy county has no jurisdiction of a suit for a divorce.\nWrit or Error to the County Court of 'Grundy county; the Hon. Colquhotot Grant, Judge, presiding.\nThis was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by James Heatherwick against his wife, Margaret, praying for a divorce. Such proceedings were had in that court that a decree for a divorce was granted. Thereupon the defendant below sued out this writ of error, and now insists that the County Court of Grundy county had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit.\nMessrs. Irwin and Snowhook, for the plaintiff in error;\ncited act of Feb. 15, 1855, Sess. Acts, p. 160; and act of Feb. 27, 1854, Sess. Acts, p. 239.\nMessrs. Lelands and Blanchard, for the defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 73,
  "last_page_order": 74
}