Seelye v. Seelye

32 N.E. 427, 143 Ill. 264
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided October 31, 1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This is a proceeding, under the statute, to recover separate maintenance. The amount decreed to be paid' is less then $1000, and the facts are precisely the same as they were in Umlauf v. Umlauf, 103 Ill. 651. Eor the reasons given in that case the appeal must be dismissed. In Jenkins v. Jenkins, 104 Ill. 134, and in Johnson v. Johnson, 125 id. 510, the question of jurisdiction was not called to the attention of the court, and no decision was made in either of those cases in that respect.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Seelye v. Seelye, 32 N.E. 427, 143 Ill. 264 (Ill. 1892).

32 N.E. 427 (Seelye v. Seelye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zechman v. Zechman
63 N.E.2d 499 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1945)