Chicago Dredging & Dock Co. v. McCarty

Appellate Court of Illinois

Chicago Dredging & Dock Co. v. McCarty

11 Ill. App. 552, 1882 Ill. App. LEXIS 117

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 26, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 Ill. App. 552 (Chicago Dredging & Dock Co. v. McCarty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicago Dredging & Dock Co. v. McCarty, 11 Ill. App. 552, 1882 Ill. App. LEXIS 117 (Ill. Ct. App. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, P. J.

The plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in error, before a justice of the peace of Cook county, from which judgment the defendant in error appealed to the circuit court. The appeal was taken by filing an appeal bond August 9, 1878, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. May 19, 1882, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, on motion of defendant in error, at the costs of plaintiff in error, neither the plaintiff in error nor any one for it being present, and judgment for the costs of suit. Ho appeal summons was ever served on plaintiff in error, nor was there a return of two nihils, nor was there any appearance, in writing or otherwise, by the plaintiff in error, appellee in the circuit court.

The record also shows that the papers and transcript of the proceedings had before the justice, were never filed in the circuit court.

There having been ,no service of summons upon the appellee, nor return of two nihils, and he not having voluntarily appeared in the circuit court, the court had no jurisdiction over his person, and no authority to make any order in the case, other than to continue it, and it was error to dismiss the suit on appellee’s motion, or to render judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The case is directly within Camp v. Hogan, 73 Ill. 228; see, also, McMullen v. Graham, 6 Bradwell, 564; Schmidt v. Skelly, 10 Bradwell, 96.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wilson, P. J.

The plaintiff in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in error, before a justice of the peace of Cook county, from which judgment the defendant in error appealed to the circuit court. The appeal was taken by filing an appeal bond August 9, 1878, in the office of the clerk of the circuit court. May 19, 1882, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, on motion of defendant in error, at the costs of plaintiff in error, neither the plaintiff in error nor any one for it being present, and judgment for the costs of suit. Ho appeal summons was ever served on plaintiff in error, nor was there a return of two nihils, nor was there any appearance, in writing or otherwise, by the plaintiff in error, appellee in the circuit court.

The record also shows that the papers and transcript of the proceedings had before the justice, were never filed in the circuit court.

There having been ,no service of summons upon the appellee, nor return of two nihils, and he not having voluntarily appeared in the circuit court, the court had no jurisdiction over his person, and no authority to make any order in the case, other than to continue it, and it was error to dismiss the suit on appellee’s motion, or to render judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The case is directly within Camp v. Hogan, 73 Ill. 228; see, also, McMullen v. Graham, 6 Bradwell, 564; Schmidt v. Skelly, 10 Bradwell, 96.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Ill. App. 552, 1882 Ill. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-dredging-dock-co-v-mccarty-illappct-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack