Filkins v. O'Sullivan

79 Ill. 524
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 79 Ill. 524 (Filkins v. O'Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Filkins v. O'Sullivan, 79 Ill. 524 (Ill. 1875).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a writ of error to the circuit court of Cook county, and the only point made on the record necessary to be considered is, that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, so as to render a judgment against him.

The action was assumpsit, against plaintiff in error, on her guaranty endorsed on a promissory note, and a judgment was taken against her by default, and the point is made there was no service of process on her.

It appears the writ was served, not by the sheriff or other officer, but by a person deputized by the sheriff, bearing the same name as that of one of the plaintiffs in the action, and, nothing appearing to the contrary, this court will presume the person who served the summons was the party plaintiff, from identity of names. Brown, impleaded, etc. v. Metz, 33 Ill. 339. A party to the suit can not serve his own writ. Woods v. Gilson, 17 ib. 218.

Another objection is, the return was not sworn to as the statute requires. There is no affidavit of any kind attached to the return. The statute provides that such special deputy shall make return of the time and manner of making such service, in writing, verified by his oath or affirmation, made before some officer competent to administer oaths. Sess. Laws 1869, p. 399, sec. 1.

The judgment being by default, advantage can be taken here of this failure to comply with the statute. The court had no jurisdiction of defendant’s person. Noleman v. Weil, 72 111. 502—a case in all respects like this.

The judgment is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Gocheff v. Breeding
368 N.E.2d 982 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
People v. Davis
357 N.E.2d 792 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1976)
State v. Cobb
406 P.2d 421 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1965)
The PEOPLE v. Stewart
177 N.E.2d 237 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
Breznik v. Braun
144 N.E.2d 586 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1957)
The People v. Casey
77 N.E.2d 812 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1948)
Nevada Cornell Silver Mines, Inc. v. Hankins
279 P. 27 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1929)
State Ex Rel. Kelly v. District Court
235 P. 751 (Montana Supreme Court, 1925)
Bank of Union v. Loeb
76 S.E. 883 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1912)
Nelson v. Chittenden
23 Colo. App. 123 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1912)
Nelson v. Chittenden
53 Colo. 30 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1912)
People ex rel. Lafferty v. Feicke
96 N.E. 1052 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1911)
Clifford v. Pioneer Fire-Proofing Co.
232 Ill. 150 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1907)
Brettell v. Deffebach
60 N.W. 167 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Toenniges v. Drake
7 Colo. 471 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1884)
Morton v. Crane
39 Mich. 526 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1878)
Lee v. Fox
89 Ill. 226 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 Ill. 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/filkins-v-osullivan-ill-1875.