{
  "id": 5336790,
  "name": "Abraham S. Voorhies v. Elizabeth Voorhies",
  "name_abbreviation": "Voorhies v. Voorhies",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "533",
  "last_page": "534",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ill. 533"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 187,
    "char_count": 2451,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "sha256": "645cdf853962184c70aeaf5ac442117a3c0ed5fb8aacf91b90d04d0ffb2ae230",
    "simhash": "1:d1de2c87db5af84e",
    "word_count": 437
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:19.170928+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Abraham S. Voorhies v. Elizabeth Voorhies."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dickey\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nFrom the circumstances, proved, we are constrained to believe that the parties all agreed upon the sale of the premises; that the appellee was to have, in her own right, $1800 of the proceeds- of the land as the price of her dower right in the land. If this were so, we see no reason why appellant ought not to pay the principal, as well as the interest, of the note.\nThe decree must be affirmed.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dickey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hr. B. F. Burnett, for the appellant.",
      "Messrs. Patton & Lanphier, and Mr. E. Lane, for the appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Abraham S. Voorhies v. Elizabeth Voorhies.\nPromissory note\u2014given for dower interest, to maker's mother, collectible. Where a person died, leaving three children and a widow, and certain real estate in which the widow was entitled to dower, and by consent of all the land was sold and the proceeds divided, each child giving his note to the widow for $600, one of whom refused to pay his note, it was held, that the widow was entitled to collect the principal as well as the interest on the note, the notes having been given far the price of her dower in the lands sold.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Charles S. Zane, Judge, presiding.\nAppellee is the widow of Daniel V. Voorhies, deceased. Appellant and his brother and sister are the only heirs of deceased. At his death, Daniel V. Voorhies was the owner of a tract of land. The parties all occupied the same in common after his death. At length they all united in a sale of the property, for the net sum of \u00a75400, of which, by consent, \u00a73600 was divided between the children, each taking \u00a71200, and the remaining \u00a71800 was also divided equally between the three children, each giving to their mother (the appellee) a note for \u00a7600, and securing the same by mortgage. Two of the children have paid to their mother each the sum of \u00a7600. The appellant, one \"of the sons, refuses to pay his note. At his request, his first note was canceled, and another note, with one Best as security, was given in lieu of his original note.\nAn action was brought by appellee (the mother) against appellant (one of the sons) and against Best, to recover the amount due upon this \u00a7600 note. Thereupon appellant filed, a bill in chancery, to enjoin appellee from collecting on that note anything except the interest. The circuit court, upon hearing, refused the injunction and dismissed the bill, and complainant appeals.\nHr. B. F. Burnett, for the appellant.\nMessrs. Patton & Lanphier, and Mr. E. Lane, for the appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0533-01",
  "first_page_order": 533,
  "last_page_order": 534
}