From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Buehler v. Buehler

Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District
Feb 10, 1944
321 Ill. App. 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 1944)

Opinion

Gen. No. 42,653. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed February 10, 1944

DIVORCE, § 144service of rule, etc., on application to modify order or decree as to alimony, etc. Under rule 60, § 6, of superior court of Cook county, which provides that, on filing and presentation of petition to modify final order or decree as to alimony or children's custody, court shall enter rule on respondent to plead, after service on him of rule and copy of petition, held that there was no merit in contentions that service of notice of filing of petition on attorneys who represented respondent during pendency of divorce suit was not sufficient compliance with such section of such rule, and that, for purposes thereof, relationship between litigant and his attorney ceased upon termination of suit and filing of petition constituted beginning of new suit.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. U.S. SCHWARTZ, Judge, presiding.

Order affirmed. Heard in the second division, first district, this court at the April term, 1943.

Petit, Olin Overmyer, for appellant;

Adelor J. Petit, Jr., of counsel;

Jacob G. Grossberg and Harry May, for appellee.


Not to be published in full. Opinion filed February 10, 1944.


Summaries of

Buehler v. Buehler

Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District
Feb 10, 1944
321 Ill. App. 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 1944)
Case details for

Buehler v. Buehler

Case Details

Full title:Goldie Buehler, Appellee, v. Albert C. Buehler, Appellant

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, Chicago, First District

Date published: Feb 10, 1944

Citations

321 Ill. App. 630 (Ill. App. Ct. 1944)
53 N.E.2d 336

Citing Cases

Riddlesbarger v. Riddlesbarger

[1] Riddlesbarger expressly admits in his brief and conceded on oral argument that the jurisdiction of the…