Berlingieri v. Berlingieri

• Decision Date: 03 October 1939
• Docket Number: No. 25043.,25043.
• Citation: 22 N.E.2d 675,372 Ill. 60
• Parties: BERLINGIERI v. BERLINGIERI.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

372 Ill. 60

22 N.E.2d 675

BERLINGIERI

v.BERLINGIERI.

No. 25043.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 15, 1939.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 3, 1939.

Suit for divorce by Merry Fahrney Berlingieri against Arturo Berlingieri. The Appellate Court, 297 Ill.App. 119, 17 N.E.2d 354, reversed the Circuit Court's decree granting a divorce, and the plaintiff appeals by leave of the Supreme Court.

Judgment of Appellate Court reversed, and decree of Circuit Court affirmed.Appeal from Third Division, Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; John Prystolski, Judge.

Frank E. Cantwell, of Chicago, for appellant.

Kamfuer & Halligan, of Chicago (Edwin A. Halligan and Samuel M. Lanoff, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

ORR, Justice.

Merry Fahrney Berlingieri obtained a divorce from Arturo Berlingieri in the circuit court of Cook county on the ground of cruelty. On appeal to the Appellate Court for the First District, 297 Ill.App. 119, 17 N.E.2d 354, this decree was reversed and we granted Mrs. Berlingieri leave to appeal from that decision.

Mrs. Berlingieri testified at the trial that she and Arturo Berlingieri were married in Harrison, New York, on July 31, 1937; that she was now living at the Ambassador Hotel in Chicago and that she had resided in that city all of her life. It further appears from the record that after her marriage in New York, on July 31, 1937, she and her husband remained at separate hotels in New York until August 3 of that year; on that date she left for California by train and he followed her by automobile. She testified that her husband struck her in their hotel apartment in California on August 7, on August 11, again on August 15, and a fourth time on August 20. Robert Chayne, her chauffeur, testified that he was outside the Berlingieri suite of rooms on August 7 and heard the plaintiff scream and that when he saw her immediately thereafter her face was inflamed. Anita Sparks, Mrs. Berlingieri's maid, corroborated the testimony of her mistress that defendant struck her on August 20. The husband denied on the witness stand that he had struck his wife at any time.

Two issues have been raised throughout the proceedings in this case: (1) Had Mrs. Berlingieri been a bona fide resident of Illinois for a year prior to the filing of her suit, and (2) is there sufficient testimony in the record to support the allegations of cruelty in the complaint? Section 3 of the Divorce act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, chap. 40, § 3) provides that ‘No person shall be entitled to a divorce in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, who has not resided in the State one whole year next before filing his or her complaint or petition, unless the offense or injury complained of was committed within this State, or while one or both of the parties resided in this State.’ Defendant contends that the word ‘residence’ in the provision just quoted was intended to mean ‘domicile’ even though it is nowhere expressly so stated. In support of this contention he cites cases where the word ‘residence’ in the Revenue act and other statutes has been so construed. Such cases, however, are not authority here. We have already interpreted this section of the Divorce act in Way v. Way, 64 Ill. 406, where we held that the word ‘residence’ as used there was intended to have its ordinary and commonly accepted meaning. This construction was followed by us in Hill v. Hill, 166 Ill. 54, 46 N.E. 751.

The present case is an example of the absurd results that would follow from any other interpretation. It appears that Arturo Berlingieri, who is thirty-three, is an international itinerant, with his birth-place and...