Hildebrand v. Hildebrand
| Decision Date | 24 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41107,41107 |
| Citation | 41 Ill.2d 87,242 N.E.2d 145 |
| Parties | Melvin A. HILDEBRAND, Appellant, v. Catherine E. HILDEBRAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Emerson Baetz, Alton, for appellant.
Chapman, Strawn & Kinder, Granite City (Morris B. Chapman, Granite City, of counsel), for appellee.
The appellant, Melvin A. Hildebrand, was granted a divorce from his wife, Catherine E. Hildebrand, the appellee, on July 8, 1966, by the circuit court of Madison County. The Appellate Court for the Fifth District, on the appeal of the appellee here, reversed the decree and remanded the cause to the circuit court, holding that the wife's petition for a change of venue had been improperly denied. (87 Ill.App.2d 218, 231 N.E.2d 261.) We granted the husband-appellant's petition for leave to appeal.
The appellant's complaint for divorce was filed on June 30, 1965. It alleged the appellee's desertion and asked that custody of their four-year-old child be awarded to the appellee subject to the appellant's being granted temporary visitation rights and custody of the child during the appellant's vacation period. On August 18, 1965, the appellee answered, denying the allegation of desertion and stating that temporary custody should not be granted to the appellant as the stability of the child would be adversely affected by undescribed habits of the appellant. The appellee also at that time filed a counterclaim charging the appellant with desertion and praying for custody of the child and other relief.
On April 20, 1966, a hearing was had, at which the appellee and another witness, called in her behalf, gave testimony. This testimony was offered to show that the appellant had left the appellee, had begun quarrels with her, had improperly associated with other women and that he had a bad temper. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court entered an order which stated in part:
'Case continued to July 11, 1966, without further notice.'
On May 12 the appellee moved to vacate the order of April 20 which gave visitation rights to the appellant or, alternatively, to limit further such rights. The trial court set the motion for hearing on June 3. On June 2 the appellant asked that a citation be issued and that the appellee be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt because of her failure to respect the court's order of April 20 pertaining to his rights of visitation. The trial court on June 3, stating that the appellee's motion to vacate raised 'matters outside the record (and) being unsupported by affidavit or witnesses,' denied the motion and ordered a citation to issue returnable on June 10.
The appellee on June 8 moved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Kozloff, In re
...disposed towards his cause. (People v. Taylor (1984), 101 Ill.2d 508, 79 Ill.Dec. 151, 463 N.E.2d 705; Hildebrand v. Hildebrand (1968), 41 Ill.2d 87, 90, 242 N.E.2d 145; People v. Chambers (1956), 9 Ill.2d 83, 89, 136 N.E.2d 812; Richards v. Greene (1875), 78 Ill. 525, 528.) Under the appel......
-
Baker v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
...have been ruled upon is not timely. Booth v. Metropolitan Sanitary District, 79 Ill.App.2d 310, 224 N.E.2d 591; Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 41 Ill.2d 87, 242 N.E.2d 145. Defendant also urges that evidence of traffic count on Maryville Road over the crossing in May and November of 1964 and May......
-
Marriage of Birt, In re
...in the cause. (Heman v. Jefferson (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 745, 750-51, 91 Ill.Dec. 191, 483 N.E.2d 537; see Hildebrand v. Hildebrand (1968), 41 Ill.2d 87, 90, 242 N.E.2d 145.) The rationale for the timeliness requirement is that the courts have long condemned a litigant's attempt to seek a c......
-
Lawyer v. Lawyer
... ... Hildebrand v. Hildebrand (1968), 41 Ill.2d 87, 90, 242 N.E.2d 145; People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill.2d 177, 187, 242 N.E.2d 208; Russell v. Russell (1947), 333 ... ...