Bowman v. Bowman
Citation | 64 Ill. 75,1872 WL 8264 |
Parties | MARIA S. BOWMANv.JOHN B. BOWMAN. |
Decision Date | 30 June 1872 |
Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. JOSEPH GILLESPIE, Judge, presiding.
On the 10th day of November, 1871, being the third Friday of the October term of the St. Clair circuit court, the appellee filed his bill for a divorce against the appellant, on the ground of extreme and repeated cruelty, and prayed, also, for the custody of the children, aged respectively 11, 13, 15 and 17 years. The following indorsements were on the bill:
“I have been shown the above bill, and authorize my solicitor, Robert F. Wingate, to enter my appearance in the above cause.
MARIA S. BOWMAN.”
“EAST ST. LOUIS, Oct. 24, 1871.
I hereby waive process and enter my appearance in this cause, and pray an early adjudication of the case.
MARIA S. BOWMAN.”
The special master reported the following testimony, taken November 11, 1871:
John H. Wyatt testified that he had known the parties ten or twelve years; have seen the defendant strike the complainant twice with a piano stool, in September, 1870; saw her draw a knife on him in April, 1871; she said she would cut his heart out; he said, “No, I reckon you wouldn't do that,” and got up and left the house; don't think the parties can live together; have heard defendant say repeatedly that she never would live with complainant; have seen defendant assault the complainant three times within the last two years; never saw her draw a pistol on him, but she told me she had done so.
B. B. Wyatt testified that he had known the parties for the last three years; heard defendant say she had struck the complainant over the head with a piano stool; complainant was often afraid to go home, and stayed away from the house for fear of being attacked; know that there have been irreconcilable difficulties between the parties since the spring of 1868.
The special master recommended the granting of a divorce, and that reasonable alimony be allowed to defendant in accordance with the offer in the bill.
Upon this, a decree of divorce was rendered, which recited: The decree further found that the court was fully satisfied of the truth of said allegations; that the parties were married as stated, and that defendant had, for more than two years past, been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty to the complainant. The court awarded to defendant alimony at $75 per month until November, 1878, and after that $100 per month so long as she should remain single and unmarried, and made the same a lien on certain real estate.
On the eighth Friday of the same term, the defendant below, by her counsel, moved the court to vacate the decree, and filed her affidavit in support of the motion, that she was not aware of any such suit pending against her; that the first knowledge of such proceeding was the announcement several weeks after the divorce was granted; that she was now divorced from complainant, and that he had obtained said divorce from her on the ground of cruelty; that more than ten days previous to the October term, 1871, of the St. Clair circuit court, she had filed her bill of divorce against said John B. Bowman, charging extreme and repeated cruelty, and adultery, and that this bill was dismissed without her knowledge; that she was threatened with death by her said husband unless she would withdraw said case from George W. Davis, her solicitor, who had commenced said suit for her, and would employ such lawyer as he should propose; that afterwards, complainant sent a man by the name of Wyatt, who took affiant over the river to R. F. Wingate, in St. Louis, Mo., who was engaged for her, and thereupon, afterwards, at the house of complainant, by fraud and compulsion, she was required to sign some papers of which she did not know the import, and that she did not know what they were until after the divorce was granted; that her suit against John B. Bowman for divorce was dismissed without her knowledge or authority, or that of her solicitor, George W. Davis, and that she signed said papers through fear of her life; that the charges in the bill, filed by complainant against her, are false and malicious, and that she is ready and able to disprove each and every such charge in said bill; but that, on the contrary, said John B. Bowman has been guilty of extreme and repeated cruelty towards her, and that he has been guilty of adultery with divers persons, and keeps company with lewd women; that she can prove said charges if this decree is set aside; that the divorce granted in this cause was granted without her knowledge; that it is a fraud and a wrong against her. She therefore prays that said decree and default be set aside and she be allowed to present her defense to said suit.
Counter affidavits of Robert F. Wingate, Benjamin B. Wyatt and James H. Wyatt were filed on the hearing of the motion, contradicting the charge that the defendant did not know of the pendency of the suit and the rendition of the decree therein.
The court refused to open the decree, and the defendant appealed to this court.
Messrs. HAY & KNISPEL, and Messrs. G. & G. A. KŒRNER, for the appellant.
Messrs. C. W. & E. L. THOMAS, and Mr. W. H. UNDERWOOD, for the appellee.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Kaufman, In re
...to and quoted from Bremer v. Bremer, 4 Ill.2d 190, 122 N.E.2d 794 (1954), which cited to an earlier supreme court case, Bowman v. Bowman, 64 Ill. 75, 81 (1872). Clearly, that rules of equity apply to divorce proceedings is a clear and long-standing rule of We agree with and find persuasive ......
- Race v. Sullivan
- Baragwanath v. Wilson
- Franz v. Killian Winne.