Wirtz v. Henry
This text of 59 Ill. 109 (Wirtz v. Henry) 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.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The only question presented by this record is, whether process can be sent to a foreign county, against a sole defendant, in an action on the case for deceit. Under the act of 1861, process can be sent, against a sole defendant, into a county other than that in which the suit is brought, only in cases where the action is upon a contract that has been, made in the county in which the action is brought, and the plaintiff is a resident of such county. . The language of the act, by necessary implication, precludes the sending of process to a foreign county, against a sole defendant, in any action not brought upon a contract. The action in this case is not brought upon a contract. It grows out of a contract, it is true, but the action is brought to recover damages for the alleged fraud and deceit practised in making the contract, and not for a violation of any of its terms, or to assert a right based upon the contract.
The demurrer to the replication should have been sustained.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 Ill. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wirtz-v-henry-ill-1871.