Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edna Anderson, Appellee, v. E. Stanton Anderson, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 22,399.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. George Kebsten, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed.
    Opinion filed May 29, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill for divorce by Edna Anderson, complainant, against E. Stanton Anderson, defendant. From an order committing defendant for contempt of court for refusal to pay $1,075 alimony entered therein, defendant appeals.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Divorce, § 122
      
      —when order committing defendant for contempt of court for refusal to pay alimony will 6e reversed. Even though the record on appeal from an order committing a defendant for contempt of court in refusing to pay alimony fails to show that there was any petition or affidavit to support the rule to show cause and the failure to appear, in conformity with the usual practice, such irregularities are not ground for reversal if defendant was given an opportunity to appear and purge himself and evidence was heard to support the findings recited in the order of commitment, but where the record shows nothing whereon to predicate the order save the rule, the appearance and an undisposed of motion to quash the same, and further shows that defendant was discharged on his answer to another rule a few days before which set up facts tending to show that no alimony was due at that time, judgment on an order of commitment for the nonpayment of $1,075 will be reversed, where the decree allowed only $100 a month.
    Leslie H. Whipp, for appellant.
    Lloyd D. Heth, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.