Scott v. Simmons

260 Ill. App. 274, 1931 Ill. App. LEXIS 1174
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided January 19, 1931·Published

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.

In an action of assumpsit defendant in error recovered a judgment against plaintiffs in error by default. The sheriff’s return on the summons shows that it was served by reading only.

Plaintiffs in error contend that the service in that regard was insufficient to give the court jurisdiction over them. The statute provides that service of summons, except when otherwise expressly provided by statute, shall be made by leaving a copy thereof with the defendant in person. Cahill’s Ill. St. ch. 110, ¶ 2. When a statute requires that the service of a summons shall be made by leaving a copy with the defendant, service by reading is not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, where the defendant does not appear and plead. Sconce v. Whitney, 12 Ill. 150; Wilhite v. Pearce, 47 Ill. 413; Greenwood v. Murphy, 131 Ill. 604-607.

There is no escape from the conclusion that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction of the plaintiffs in error and for that reason the judgment 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

Scott v. Simmons, 260 Ill. App. 274, 1931 Ill. App. LEXIS 1174 (Ill. Ct. App. 1931).

260 Ill. App. 274 (Scott v. Simmons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sconce v. Whitney
12 Ill. 150 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1850)
Wilhite v. Pearce
47 Ill. 413 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1868)
Greenwood v. Murphy
23 N.E. 421 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1890)