Case ID: ill-app_190/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dibell", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pearl Berry, Appellee, v. Edwin W. Berry, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 5,936.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Husband and wife, § 267
      
      —when decree for separate maintenance will not be disturbed. Where a decree for separate maintenance is entered upon conflicting evidence, it will not be disturbed on review, if there is sufficient evidence to support complainant’s contention.
    2. Husband and wife, § 249*—solicitors’ fees not excessive. An allowance of fifty dollars for solicitors’ fees in an action for separate maintenance is held not to be excessive, there being no question as-to the court’s right to make such an allowance.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake county; the Hon. Charles Whitney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 31, 1914.
    Rehearing denied October 8, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Pearl Berry against Edwin W. Berry for separate maintenance. From a decree for separate maintenance and for solicitors’ fees and costs of suit and custody of a child three years of age, defendant appeals.
    Upon the question of issuing a writ of ne exeat in a divorce case to secure the payment of alimony, the court cited the following authorities: Mac Kenzie v. Mac Kenzie, 141 Ill. App. 126; Denton v. Denton, 1 Johns ch. (N. Y.) 364, 441, and cases cited.
    Heydecker & Jorgenson and E. V. Orvis, for appellant.
    H. C. Coulson and R. F. Fowler, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Ne exeat, § 8*—when objection to power of court to issue not preserved for review. Where an appeal bond does not recite an appeal from a distinct order for a writ of ne exeat, which was not questioned in the trial court, the question whether the issuance of such a writ was beyond the powers of the court because not within the letter of the statute was not saved for review.

Whitney, J., took no part in this decision.