Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 Ill. App. 414

Robinson v. Robinson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided July 1, 1893

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1893-07-01

Memorandum.—Divorce. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding. Bill for divorce; answer and replication; cross-bill, answer and replication; decree for complainant; error by defendant. Heard in this court at the March term, 1893, and affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1895

1 state decisions

Relies on Bremer v. Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Co. · Frink v. Neal · Brant v. Hutchinson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1893-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion oe the Court,

Gary, P. J.

¶2The defendant in error filed a bill for divorce from his wife, the plaintiff in error.

¶3The decree recites that the cause was heard upon the bill of complaint, the answer, replication, cross-bill, answer and replication, “ proofs taken in said cause and testimony of witnesses taken in open court.”

¶4The record here shows nothing of this “ testimony.” The decree finds that she willfully deserted and absented herself from him, without any reasonable cause, for the space of two years before the commencement of this suit, as charged in the bill. In the absence from the record here, of the testimony, that finding can not be disturbed. Frink v. Neal, 37 Ill. App. 621.

¶5The decree also finds that he intrusted to her at various times for safe keeping various sums of money, amounting in all to §2,000 belonging to him, which she commingled with her own money, and with the w'hole bought some real estate, and improved it, and the decree directs her to pay him that sum and awards execution. It also declares a lien upon the real estate, and provides for a sale of it, in default of payment.

¶6The only allegations of the bill relating to money are that he bought the real estate and paid $4,200 for it, with his own money; that the title was taken in her name in trust for him; and that with his own money he paid for the improvements, between $9,000 and $10,000.

¶7The allegations of the bill are so unlike the finding in the decree, as to the money, that the decree can not stand. Brant v. Hutchinson, 40 Ill. App. 576; Quinn v. McMahan, Ibid. 593; Bremer v. Calumet, etc., Co., 123 Ill. 104.

¶8If the proof sustained the finding in the decree as to the money, it only showed a cause of action in assumpsit for money lent, or had and received, nothing calling for the aid of a court of equity.

¶9So much of the decree as divorces the parties is affirmed; that part awarding to the defendant in error $2,000, to be paid by the plaintiff in error is reversed, but without cost to either party.

¶10Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

/50/illapp/414 · .json · Public domain