Union National Bank v. First National Bank

Illinois Supreme Court

Union National Bank v. First National Bank

90 Ill. 56

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 90 Ill. 56 (Union National Bank v. First National Bank) 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

Union National Bank v. First National Bank, 90 Ill. 56 (Ill. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This court, in Mineral Point Railroad Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9, laid down the doctrine that where it is denied that process was served upon the agent of a corporation, as the return of the sheriff shows, the fact must be put in issue by a plea in abatement. And again in Holloway et al. v. Freeman, id. 197, it was held that where it is designed to put in issue the return of the sheriff, it must be by plea in abatement. More recently, in Sibert v. Thorp, 77 Ill. 43, on review of the previous decisions, it was held that the sheriff's return of service on an original process does not import absolute verity, but is only prima facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein recited, and, consequently, may be put in issue, before judgment, by plea in abatement.

In the Protection Life Insurance Co. v. Palmer, 81 Ill. 88, there are expressions which intimate a contrary rule. There was no design in that case to overrule the previous decisions, and those expressions are to be regarded as obiter dicta only.

The defense attempted to be interposed by appellant is one that may be properly interposed by plea, but it can only be done by one filed at the earliest opportunity; and on the authority of Holloway et al. v. Freeman, supra, we must hold that appellant did not plead this defense in apt time, but here, as there, he waived it by interposing an insufficient motion. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Scholfield

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This court, in Mineral Point Railroad Co. v. Keep, 22 Ill. 9, laid down the doctrine that where it is denied that process was served upon the agent of a corporation, as the return of the sheriff shows, the fact must be put in issue by a plea in abatement. And again in Holloway et al. v. Freeman, id. 197, it was held that where it is designed to put in issue the return of the sheriff, it must be by plea in abatement. More recently, in Sibert v. Thorp, 77 Ill. 43, on review of the previous decisions, it was held that the sheriff's return of service on an original process does not import absolute verity, but is only prima facie evidence of the truth of the matters therein recited, and, consequently, may be put in issue, before judgment, by plea in abatement.

In the Protection Life Insurance Co. v. Palmer, 81 Ill. 88, there are expressions which intimate a contrary rule. There was no design in that case to overrule the previous decisions, and those expressions are to be regarded as obiter dicta only.

The defense attempted to be interposed by appellant is one that may be properly interposed by plea, but it can only be done by one filed at the earliest opportunity; and on the authority of Holloway et al. v. Freeman, supra, we must hold that appellant did not plead this defense in apt time, but here, as there, he waived it by interposing an insufficient motion. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Ill. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-national-bank-v-first-national-bank-ill-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack