Evans v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 31 December 1840 |
| Citation | 3 Ill. 468,1840 WL 2973,2 Scam. 468 |
| Parties | JOHN EVANSv.SAMUEL C. PIERCE, SAMUEL THOMAS, and the SHERIFF OF GREEN COUNTY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
THE proceedings in this case, in the court below, were had at the April term, 1839, before the Hon. William Thomas.
S. T. LOGAN, for the appellant, cited 1 Peters 340; 4 Peters 466; 3 Cowen 208; 9 Cowen 227; 5 Johns. 40; 8 Johns. 70, 90; 19 Johns. 40.
By virtue of an execution, the sheriff of Green county sold a tract of land belonging to Samuel C. Pierce, to John Evans, and gave him a certificate for a deed at the expiration of the time of redemption.
Prior to that time, Pierce sent a letter to a justice of the peace, authorizing him to enter judgment against him, in favor of Thomas, for an amount named, stating that he waived service of process; upon which the justice rendered a judgment in favor of Thomas, who then proceeded as a judgment creditor of Pierce, to redeem the land sold to Evans, and accordingly paid the sheriff the amount that Evans had given for the land. Evans contested Thomas' right to redeem the land, and applied to the court for a mandamus to compel the sheriff to make him a deed of the land, in conformity to his certificate of purchase. Pierce, Thomas, and the sheriff, made themselves parties to the motion, and, by consent, a judgment, pro forma, was entered against Evans, from which he appealed to this court.
The first question that arises is in reference to the jurisdiction of the justice, in the case of Thomas v. Pierce. That he had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit, there is no doubt; but did he acquire jurisdiction over the person of Pierce, by having him personally before him, or by legally notifying him of the proceeding against him, in the manner required by law? A justice's jurisdiction is conferred by statute, and in its exercise he must proceed in strict conformity with the manner prescribed. Has that been done in this case? The statute directs that suit before a justice of the peace shall be commenced by a summons, the form of which is given, and that it shall be served upon the defendant, by reading it to him; upon the return of this process, executed by the proper officer, or upon the parties appearing in person before the justice, and agreeing to waive process, he may proceed to hear and decide the cause. In this case, however, the parties neither appeared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peterson
...... limit the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace:. ( Bowers v. Green, 2 Ill. 42; Robinson v. Harlin, 2 Ill. 237; Evans v. Pierce, 3 Ill. 468; White v. Wagar, 185 Ill. 195, 50 L. R. A. 60;). the case of Weeks v. U. S. 232 U.S. 383, is cited as. an authority for ......
-
People v. Jarrett
......356; White v. Jones, 38 Ill. 160; VonKettler v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109; Thomas v. Hinsdale 78 Ill. 259; Hull v. Blaisdell, 1 Scam. 332; Evans v. Pierce, 2 Scam. 468: Evans v. Bouton, 85 Ill. 579; Firebaugh v. Hall, 63 Ill. 81: Haywood v. Collins, 60 Ill. 328; Vairin v. Edmonson, 5 Gilm. ......
-
Thatcher v. Maack
......Stat. 1874, Chap. 79, §§ 17, 122; Shufeldt v. Buckley, 45 Ill. 223; Evans v. Pierce, 2 Scam. 468; Steward v. Smith, 17 Wend. 517. It was void for uncertainty in the date of its rendition: Rev. Stat. Chap. ......
-
Leitch v. Colson
......PERRY A. HULL, for appellant; that a justice has no jurisdiction except as conferred by statute, cited Evans v. Pierce, 2 Scam. 468; Robinson v. Harlan, 1 Scam. 237; Clark v. Holmes, 1 Doug. 390; Moore's Treatise, § 27. Scire facias can be ......