Bensyl v. Hughs

Appellate Court of Illinois

Bensyl v. Hughs

109 Ill. App. 86, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 382

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 30, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 Ill. App. 86 (Bensyl v. Hughs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bensyl v. Hughs, 109 Ill. App. 86, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 382 (Ill. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice

Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit by appellee to recover for board and lodging furnished appellant’s wife, while living apart from appellant, appellee recovered a judgment for $204.

That appellee furnished appellant’s wife board and lodging for at least sixty-eight weeks was not disputed upon the trial. But it was contended that she left appellant voluntarily and refused to return after he had specifically requested her to do so.

The evidence shows that on the 12th of December, 1800, after a slight quarrel, appellant and his wife separated and she went to appellee’s to board. It was a separation “ by consent,” and under the authorities appellant is liable to a third party for necessaries furnished her, unless he can show that he has made other and sufficient provision for her, or has placed himself in a situation which relieves him from furnishing her necessaries. Ross v. Ross, 69 Ill. 569; Seybold v. Morgan, 43 Ill. App. 40.

Soon after the separation, appellant requested his wife to return. She refused and brought suit for separate maintenance. He was, therefore, absolved from paying her board and lodging until she should in good faith offer to return. This she did in about six months, but he, supposing that her refusal in the first instance relieved him from supporting her, declined to take her back. The liability to appellee for bis wife’s board dated from that time. The damages allowed by the jury covered the entire time from the separation to the bringing of the suit at the rate of $3 per week and were too large by $72. But as appellee has, since the record has been filed in this court, entered a remittitur of $72, the error in that regard has been corrected.

The trial court properly refused to admit in evidence the pleadings and decree in the separate maintenance suit between appellant and his wife. Appellee was not a party to that suit, and in nowise bound by the result of it. The judgment will be affirmed to the extent of $132, and costs of suit below, judgment against appellee for costs of this court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice

Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

In a suit by appellee to recover for board and lodging furnished appellant’s wife, while living apart from appellant, appellee recovered a judgment for $204.

That appellee furnished appellant’s wife board and lodging for at least sixty-eight weeks was not disputed upon the trial. But it was contended that she left appellant voluntarily and refused to return after he had specifically requested her to do so.

The evidence shows that on the 12th of December, 1800, after a slight quarrel, appellant and his wife separated and she went to appellee’s to board. It was a separation “ by consent,” and under the authorities appellant is liable to a third party for necessaries furnished her, unless he can show that he has made other and sufficient provision for her, or has placed himself in a situation which relieves him from furnishing her necessaries. Ross v. Ross, 69 Ill. 569; Seybold v. Morgan, 43 Ill. App. 40.

Soon after the separation, appellant requested his wife to return. She refused and brought suit for separate maintenance. He was, therefore, absolved from paying her board and lodging until she should in good faith offer to return. This she did in about six months, but he, supposing that her refusal in the first instance relieved him from supporting her, declined to take her back. The liability to appellee for bis wife’s board dated from that time. The damages allowed by the jury covered the entire time from the separation to the bringing of the suit at the rate of $3 per week and were too large by $72. But as appellee has, since the record has been filed in this court, entered a remittitur of $72, the error in that regard has been corrected.

The trial court properly refused to admit in evidence the pleadings and decree in the separate maintenance suit between appellant and his wife. Appellee was not a party to that suit, and in nowise bound by the result of it. The judgment will be affirmed to the extent of $132, and costs of suit below, judgment against appellee for costs of this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 Ill. App. 86, 1902 Ill. App. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bensyl-v-hughs-illappct-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack