Dean v. Dean
| Decision Date | 19 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 26970.,26970. |
| Citation | 46 N.E.2d 59,381 Ill. 514 |
| Parties | DEAN v. DEAN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Peter H. Schwaba, judge.
Action for divorce by Ralph D. Dean against Jessie A. Dean. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Cohon & Goldstein, of Chicago, for appellant.
No attorney for appellee.
The decree appealed from, entered in the superior court of Cook county, granted plaintiff-appellee, Ralph D. Dean, a divorce from defendant-appellant, Jessie A. Dean. It also directed appellant to convey to appellee the title to a tract of land located in Jefferson county. A freehold being involved this court has jurisdiction on direct appeal.
It was alleged in the complaint that appellee was a resident of Cook county and has been for more than a year. Appellant's answer neither admitted nor denied this allegation but prayed strict proof. The only evidence as to appellee's residence is his own testimony that he resided in Harrisburg, Illinois, and had resided in the State twenty-five years prior to the filing of the complaint.
It is urged that under the pleadings it was incumbent upon appellee to support the allegations in the complaint, in reference to residence, by competent proof, and since he failed in that regard the decree must fail for it has no jurisdictional facts to support it. Appellee has not filed any brief in this court.
The pertinent part of section 5, Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 40, par. 6, provides: ‘The proceedings shall be had in the county where the plaintiff resides but process may be directed to any county in the State; * * *.’
The allegations of the complaint in reference to residence were sufficient to show that the court where the complaint was filed had jurisdiction. The answer did not admit such allegation but left the averment to be sustained by proof. The proof does not sustain the allegation and although there was a lapse of time between the filing of the complaint and the taking of the evidence, there is nothing in the evidence which tends to support the allegation that appellee was a resident of Cook county at the time of filing of the complaint. The statute is specific in directing that the proceedings shall be had in the county where the plaintiff resides. It makes the residence of the plaintiff in the county where the suit is to be filed a prerequisite to the existence of the right to file a complaint. Way v. Way, 64 Ill. 406;Horix v. Horix, 256...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meyer v. Meyer
...residence is lacking, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction of the subject matter, and the proceedings are void,’ citing Dean v. Dean, 381 Ill. 514, 46 N.E.2d 59;Horix v. Horix, 256 Ill.App. 436; and In re Estate of Goldberg, 288 Ill.App. 203, 5 N.E.2d 863. On this appeal defendant has reta......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...shall reside in the county where the suit is filed, is a prerequisite to the filing of a complaint in a divorce proceeding. Dean v. Dean, 381 Ill. 514, 46 N.E.2d 59. A city court is a court of general jurisdiction within the limits of the city where located. It has jurisdiction to hear and ......
-
Steffens v. Steffens
...this fact but demanded strict proof. Such allegation and counter allegation are sufficient to raise the issue of residence. Dean v. Dean, 381 Ill. 514, 46 N.E.2d 59. The question of jurisdiction thus became one of fact for the trial court's determination. Way v. Way, 64 Ill. 406. No appeal ......
-
Cullen v. Stevens
...shall reside in the county where the suit is filed, is a prerequisite to the filing of a complaint in a divorce proceeding. Dean v. Dean, 381 Ill. 514, 46 N.E.2d 59. A city court is a court of general jurisdiction within the limits of the city where located. It has jurisdiction to hear and ......