Provident Savings Life Assurance Co. v. English

Appellate Court of Illinois

Provident Savings Life Assurance Co. v. English

25 Ill. App. 134, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 541

DecidedJune 14, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Ill. App. 134 (Provident Savings Life Assurance Co. v. English) 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

Provident Savings Life Assurance Co. v. English, 25 Ill. App. 134, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 541 (Ill. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first question presented by this record is as to the constitutionality of the Act of 1873, which provides that when the defendant is an insurance company, domestic or foreign, doing any business in this State, the Circuit Court of the county where the plaintiff resides may have jurisdiction, and process may issue and be directed to any county in the State for service and return. It is by virtue of this statute alone that the Circuit Court of Morgan County acquired j nrisdiction, if it had any.

It is insisted by appellant that this statute is in violation of Sec. 22, Art. 4, and Sec. 29, Art. 6, of the Constitution. It seems necessary that this question should be determined, as it lies at the threshold of the case and determines the jurisdiction of the court below over the appellant. By the Practice Act we have no power to pass upon such a question and hence the appeal will be dismissed. Leave will be given to withdraw the record, abstracts and briefs. Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596; St. Louis Transfer Co. v. Canty, 103 Ill. 423; Marion Co. v. Lear, 108 Ill. 343; W., St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 14 Ill. App. 507. Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

The first question presented by this record is as to the constitutionality of the Act of 1873, which provides that when the defendant is an insurance company, domestic or foreign, doing any business in this State, the Circuit Court of the county where the plaintiff resides may have jurisdiction, and process may issue and be directed to any county in the State for service and return. It is by virtue of this statute alone that the Circuit Court of Morgan County acquired j nrisdiction, if it had any.

It is insisted by appellant that this statute is in violation of Sec. 22, Art. 4, and Sec. 29, Art. 6, of the Constitution. It seems necessary that this question should be determined, as it lies at the threshold of the case and determines the jurisdiction of the court below over the appellant. By the Practice Act we have no power to pass upon such a question and hence the appeal will be dismissed. Leave will be given to withdraw the record, abstracts and briefs. Wright v. People, 92 Ill. 596; St. Louis Transfer Co. v. Canty, 103 Ill. 423; Marion Co. v. Lear, 108 Ill. 343; W., St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Stephens, 14 Ill. App. 507. Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Ill. App. 134, 1886 Ill. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provident-savings-life-assurance-co-v-english-illappct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack