Healy v. Healy

Appellate Court of Illinois

Healy v. Healy

152 Ill. App. 501, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 764

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 10, 1910

DocketGen. No. 14,920

StatusPublished

This text of 152 Ill. App. 501 (Healy v. Healy) 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

Healy v. Healy, 152 Ill. App. 501, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 764 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error sued out hy the defendant to reverse a decree granting the complainant a divorce from the defendant. The bill, answer and replication were filed at the same time, 4:57 p. m., June 23, 1908, a day of the June term. The bill prayed for a summons for the defendant returnable to the July term, but no summons was issued.

The sole ground of reversal urged is that the court had no jurisdiction at the June term to hear the cause without the consent of the defendant, and the record does not affirmatively show such consent. The record contains only the pleadings and decree, and there is nothing to show that defendant made an objection to the hearing of the cause at the time it was heard. The statute provides that: “After replication is filed the cause shall be deemed at issue and stand for hearing.” Tn contemplation of law, defendant was in court and bound to take notice of all the steps in the cause. He is presumed to have had notice of the hearing of the cause, and the record does not show that he made any objection to the hearing of the cause at the time it was heard. “By his silence his acquiescence was properly inferred, and he must be held to the consequences.” Gregg v. Brower, 67 Ill. 525-531.

The decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error sued out hy the defendant to reverse a decree granting the complainant a divorce from the defendant. The bill, answer and replication were filed at the same time, 4:57 p. m., June 23, 1908, a day of the June term. The bill prayed for a summons for the defendant returnable to the July term, but no summons was issued.

The sole ground of reversal urged is that the court had no jurisdiction at the June term to hear the cause without the consent of the defendant, and the record does not affirmatively show such consent. The record contains only the pleadings and decree, and there is nothing to show that defendant made an objection to the hearing of the cause at the time it was heard. The statute provides that: “After replication is filed the cause shall be deemed at issue and stand for hearing.” Tn contemplation of law, defendant was in court and bound to take notice of all the steps in the cause. He is presumed to have had notice of the hearing of the cause, and the record does not show that he made any objection to the hearing of the cause at the time it was heard. “By his silence his acquiescence was properly inferred, and he must be held to the consequences.” Gregg v. Brower, 67 Ill. 525-531.

The decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 Ill. App. 501, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-healy-illappct-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack