McGuiness v. McGuiness

60 Ill. App. 563, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 337
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedDecember 2, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ill. App. 563 (McGuiness v. McGuiness) 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
McGuiness v. McGuiness, 60 Ill. App. 563, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 337 (Ill. Ct. App. 1895).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an application to reduce the amount awarded appellee by a former decree as an allowance for separate maintenance, it being alleged that the circumstances of both parties had, since the entry of such former decree, so changed as to make the allowance now inequitable.

The cause being referred to a master, he took testimony, and reported that the allowance should be reduced from §35 to §27.50 per month. Each party excepted to the report. The court sustained appellee’s exceptions, and overruled appellant’s.

We have examined the record, and find that the exceptions of appellant to the report of the master were of a general nature and failed to point out the evidence upon which appellant relied. They were, for this reason, properly overruled. Wolcott v. Lake View B. & L. Ass’n, 51 Ill. App. 415; Springer v. Kroesohell, 59 Ill. App. 434.

Appellee’s exceptions were as faulty.

The Supreme Court of this State hold that an appellate court will not reverse a decree because insufficient exceptions to a master’s report were sustained. Farwell et al. v. Huling, 132 Ill. 112.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Farwell v. Huling
23 N.E. 438 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)
Springer v. Kroeschell
59 Ill. App. 434 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Ill. App. 563, 1895 Ill. App. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcguiness-v-mcguiness-illappct-1895.