90 N.E. 361 (Ill. 1909), Bobowski v. Bobowski
|Citation:||90 N.E. 361, 242 Ill. 524|
|Opinion Judge:||FARMER, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).|
|Party Name:||BOBOWSKI v. BOBOWSKI.|
|Attorney:||[242 Ill. 528]Robert Zaleski, for plaintiff in error. S. L. Rathje and Charles W. Hadley (Carnahan, Elsdon & Slusser, of counsel), for defendant in error.|
|Case Date:||December 22, 1909|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Illinois|
Error to Circuit Court, Du Page County; L. C. Ruth, Judge.
Suit by Franciszka Bobowski against Stanislau Bobowski. There was a decree for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
[242 Ill. 525]Defendant in error filed a bill for divorce from plaintiff in error in the circuit court of Du Page county. The bill charged plaintiff in error with drunkenness and extreme and repeated cruelty. The parties were married in 1887 and had four children, three of whom were minors at the time the bill was filed. The bill alleged they all resided with defendant in error, and since 1892 plaintiff in error had not contributed anything toward the support of his wife and children excepting the raising of some vegetables on the lots that constituted their home; that the home was situated on lots 53 and 54 in Gostyn, an addition to Downers Grove, and was purchased partly with the money of defendant in error; and that she supposed, and was so informed by her husband, that the deed was made to them as tenants in common, but it was, in fact, made to plaintiff in error as sole grantee. The bill alleges: That the parties borrowed $650 from the Downers Grove Loan & Homestead Association and used the money in erecting a dwelling[242 Ill. 526] house upon said lots, which has since its completion been occupied by the family as a home; that the money so borrowed was payable in monthly installments, and said installments were paid for one year by plaintiff in error, but thereafter they were paid, until the loan was discharged, by defendant in error from money earned by her by her own labor. The bill further alleges that the parties later purchased two other lots as tenants in common, paying therefor $50. In addition to praying for divorce, the bill prayed for alimony in a lump sum, that the household goods be decreed to defendant in error, and the real estate be decreed to her as alimony.
Plaintiff in error answered the bill denying the material allegations, and a trial was had without a jury and a decree entered in favor of defendant in error, granting the divorce on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty and awarding her the custody of the three minor children. The decree found: That the legal title to the two lots upon which the dwelling house was situated was in plaintiff in error; that they were worth $1,350; that defendant in error and the children occupied the lower story of the dwelling house and plaintiff in error the upper story; that defendant in error had paid more than one-half of the cost of the property occupied as a homestead and was the owner of an undivided one-half thereof. The decree finds the other two lots were owned by the said parties as tenants in common; that they were vacant and unoccupied and worth about $150; that plaintiff in error was 56 years old, and able to earn, as a furrier and skin dresser, $350 a year; that defendant in error was 44 years of age; and that justice requires a gross sum to be decreed to her in full satisfaction of her claim for alimony. It was therefore ordered: That she have as her absolute property the household goods and effects; that plaintiff in error pay to her in full of all alimony, within 90 days, the gross sum of $750 and the further sum of $100 for solicitor's [242 Ill. 527] fees; 'that said alimony and solicitor's fees are hereby made a lien upon the said real estate of the said defendant; that the provision herein made for alimony shall be in bar of complainant's right of dower and homestead in the property of the defendant.' The costs of the suit are adjudged against plaintiff in error, and the decree orders that an execution be awarded defendant in error for the collection of the alimony, solicitor's fees and costs, said execution to issue to the sheriff as upon a judgment at law; and it is further ordered and adjudged that making the alimony and solicitor's fees a lien upon the real estate of plaintiff in error and in awarding execution for their collection shall not deprive the court of the power to enforce their payment by contempt proceedings.
This decree was entered on the 8th of November, 1907. Plaintiff in error failed to comply with the decree by the payment of the alimony and solicitor's fees, and an execution was issued to the sheriff of Du Page county and by him levied on all the interest of plaintiff in error in the four lots mentioned. The premises were advertised and sold by the sheriff at public sale to defendant in error for $860. A certificate of purchase was issued to her, and, no redemption...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP