Scott v. Simmons
This text of 260 Ill. App. 274 (Scott v. Simmons) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
260 Ill. App. 274, 1931 Ill. App. LEXIS 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-simmons-illappct-1931.