Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Carle Clinic Ass'n v. Seten

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 17, 1988No. 4—88—0299Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE LUND,

specially concurring:

The family expense statute is not a source of relief from defendant father because of the dissolution of marriage and award of custody to the mother prior to the services furnished by plaintiff. Right or wrong, this has been the law in Illinois since the 1888 decision in Schlesinger & Mayer v. Keifer (1889), 30 Ill. App. 253, 257, where the separation of the parties was held to be a destruction of the family in fact, and terminated the effect of the 1874 Family Expense Act (Cahill’s Ill. St. ch. 68, par. 15). Also see Hess v. Slutsky (1922), 224 Ill. App.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McMillen v. LeeIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Schlesinger v. KeiferAppellate Court of Illinois · 1889
  3. Hess v. SlutskyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1922
  4. Kippen v. KippenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API