Olson v. Scanlan
| Decision Date | 08 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 13257.,13257. |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. OLSON v. SCANLAN, Judge. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Petition for mandamus by the People, on the relation of Anna D. Olson, against Kickham Scanlan, Judge.
Peremptory writ awarded.
A. G. Dicus, of Chicago, for petitioner.
Julian C. Ryer, of Chicago (Charles A. Williams, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent.
This is an original proceeding in this court by a petition of Anna D. Olson against Kickham Scanlan, one of the circuit judges of Cook county, for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent, as such judge of the circuit court, to enter a certain decree in the case of Anna D. Olson v. John G. Olson.
The facts disclosed by the petition and answer are substantially as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Cook county, Ill., and on the 21st of August, 1915, she filed her bill of complaint in the circuit court of Cook county against her husban, John G. Olson, charging him with acts of extreme and repeated cruelty toward her, and alleging that she and her husband were the owners in joint tenancy of a certain lot in the city of Chicago described, and that she owned in her own name a part of another lot described which is vacant property. The bill further alleged that all of said property had been accumulated as a result of her savings; that she had worked continuously ever since she was married to defendant, had earned large sums of money, and had earned the board of herself and husband a large portion of the time. The bill prayed for a divorce, the custody of their daughter, and that defendant be compelled to convey to complainant the property in their joint names, and that he be forever barred of dower and other right in and to said property. Defendant was served, and answered the bill denying its material allegations. After answer filed the bill was amended by charging defendant with habitual drunkenness for more than two years. No further answer was filed and the cause was heard on the bill as amended, the answer of defendant, replication thereto, and proofs offered by the complainant. She testified in her own behalf, and introduced the testimony of eight witnesses. At the conclusion of the complainant's evidence defendant offered no testimony, but moved to dismiss the bill for want of equity, which motion was allowed, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. A certificate of evidence was signed and filed and the case was taken by writ of error to the Appellate Court for review. Defendant did not appear in that court to defend the writ of error. The Appellate Court reversed the decree of the circuit court. After referring in its opinion to the testimony on the issues of drunkenness and extreme and repeated cruelty the court said:
‘This evidence, uncontradicted, entitled the complainant to a decree of divorce and the other relief which she prayed.’
The cause was remanded to the circuit court ‘for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.’ By its judgment the Appellate Court reversed, annulled, and set aside the decree, and remanded the case to the circuit court, ‘with directions to enter a decree in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion of this court this day filed herein.’ After due notice the judgment and mandate of the Appellate Court, were filed in the circuit court, and the cause redocketed therein, and petitioner, Anna D. Olson, asked and demanded that the presiding judge, who was not the judge who dismissed the bill, enter a decree, which was presented to the court for his approval. The decree presented recited that the case came on to be heard on bill, answer, replication, and the evidence theretofore heard, the same being contained in a certificate of evidence on file in the court, and granted complainant a divorce on the grounds of extreme and repeated cruelty and drunkenness, gave her the custody of the child, and ordered defendant to convey to complainant, by good and sufficient deed, the real estate they owned jointly, and also the part of lot which the bill alleged complainant owned, and further ordered that defendant be forever barred of all dower or other right or interest in the property, which was decreed to be the sole property of complainant. The defendant objected to the entry of the decree on the ground that he was ready and able to produce testimony to disprove all the allegations of the bill and to establish that he was not guilty of any of the charges alleged against him, and to further prove that the real estate owned by complainant and defendant jointly was the result, alone, of the earnings and accumulations of defendant, who claimed he earned from $200 to $400 a month, all of which he turned over to complainant. Respondent refused to enter said decree, and ordered the case set down on the trial calendar, to be tried de novo. The petition prays that respondent be ordered by writ of mandamus to enter the decree presented.
There is no dispute as to the material facts alleged. The answer of respondent to the petition raised only question of law, and petitioner demurred to the answer, and the case was submitted on demurrer and briefs of the respective parties.
The issue of law raised is as to the effect of the judgment of the Appellate Court. Petitioner contends that it required the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People ex rel. Barrett v. Bardens
-
PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Inv. Co.
... ... (People ex rel. Barrett v. Bardens (1946), 394 Ill. 511, 68 N.E.2d 710; People ex rel. Olson v. Scanlan (1920), 294 Ill. 64, 128 N.E. 328; People ex rel. Andalman v. Finnegan (1932), 350 Ill. 109, 182 N.E. 792.) In construing the language, ... ...
- Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. West
-
Tucson Gas & Elec. Co. v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
... ... See 5B C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1963, at 541. A decision holding that the mandate is controlling is People ex rel. v. Scanlan, 294 Ill. 64, 128 N.E. 328 (1920). Decisions holding to the converse are: State ex rel. Del Curto v. District Court of Fourth Judicial District, 51 ... ...