Anderson v. Anderson

Citation82 N.E. 311,229 Ill. 538
PartiesANDERSON v. ANDERSON.
Decision Date23 October 1907
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; E. F. Dunne, Judge.

Action by Hans Anderson against Andrew P. Anderson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Stedman & Soelke, for plaintiff in error.

DUNN, J.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a decree of the circuit court of Cook county setting aside a deed from the complainant to the defendant on the ground that it was obtained by duress. There was no personal service and no appearance by the defendant. The decree must be reversed because the court did not have jurisdiction of his person.

The affidavit for publication of notice was as follows: Hans Anderson, being first duly sworn, on oath states that he is the complainant in the above cause; that the defendant formerly resided at the premises located at and known as 5559 State street, Chicago, Illinois; that he has removed from said premises to parts unknown to the complainant, and, although affiant has made diligent search and inquiry among the neighbors and acquaintances of said defendant, he is unable to ascertain his present whereabouts, and affiant does not know his whereabouts.’ The statute authorizing publication of notice requires, as the basis of such publication, an affidavit showing that the defendant ‘resides or hath gone out of this state, or on due inquiry cannot be found, or is concealed within this state, so that process cannot be served upon him, and stating the place of residence of such defendant if known, or that upon diligent inquiry his place of residence cannot be ascertained.’ 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. c. 22, § 12, p. 568. None of the requirements of the statute are met by the affidavit filed. It does not appear that upon due inquiry the defendant could not be found, or that his place of residence cannot be found upon diligent inquiry. It appears that the defendant removed from his former place of residence to parts unknown to the complainant, and that upon diligent inquiry among his neighbors and acquaintances complainant is unable to ascertain and does not know his present whereabouts. But though his whereabouts on May 8, 1902, when this affidavit was made, may have been unknown, it might be a matter of no difficulty to ascertain his residence. The affidavit is required as to his residence, as not as to his personal presence. Although he had moved to parts unknown to complainant, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Elstermeyer v. City of Cheyenne, 2198
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 19, 1941
    ...... Markley, 87 N.W. 2; Cohn v. Lawrence, 120 P. 223; Phillips v. Lawrence, 120 P. 222; Felts v. Boyer, 144 P. 420; Anderson v. Anderson, 82. N.E. 311; Harris v. Barnes, 291 N.W. 271;. Hassett v. Durbin (Nebr.) 271 N.W. 861. The. proceedings did not conform with ......
  • Carter v. Carter
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 15, 1960
    ......Co., 121 Conn. 309, 312, 184 A. 646; Watters v. Watters, 210 Ala. 550, 551, 98 So. 813; O'Rear v. Lazarus, 8 Colo. 608, 9 P. 621; Anderson [147 Conn. 244] v. Anderson, 229 Ill. 538, 539, 82 N.E. 311; 1 Freeman, . Page 177. Judgments (5th Ed.) pp. 687, 688; note, 21 A.L.R.2d 929, 932, ......
  • Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Sedys, s. 2-18-0188 & 2-18-0330 cons.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 8, 2018
    ...defendant listed in the affidavit filed in support of service by publication, as required by section 2-206(a). See Anderson v. Anderson , 229 Ill. 538, 539-40, 82 N.E. 311 (1907) ; In re Marriage of Wilson , 150 Ill. App. 3d 885, 889, 104 Ill.Dec. 184, 502 N.E.2d 447 (1986) ; Markham v. Mar......
  • People v. National Builders Bank of Chicago, BAIRD-SMIT
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • November 26, 1956
    ...... Such requirements are jurisdictional. Correll v. Greider, 245 Ill. 378, 92 N.E. 266; Anderson v. Anderson, 229 Ill. 538, 82 N.E. 311; Boyland v. Boyland, 18 Ill. 551. The attempted notice by registered mail was equally objectionable since it ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT