Gardner v. Henry A. Witbord.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1871 |
| Citation | 59 Ill. 145,1871 WL 8004 |
| Parties | HENRY GARDNERv.HENRY A. WITBORD. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Common Pleas Court of Sparta; the Hon. WILLIAM P. MURPHY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought on a promissory note given by Witbord to Gardner. The question arises upon the writ, which was as follows:
+---------------------------+
¦STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+-------------------+-+-----¦
¦ ¦)¦ss. ¦
+-------------------+-+-----¦
¦Randolph county. ¦)¦ ¦
+---------------------------+
The people of the State of Illinois to the city marshal, to all sheriffs, coroners, and constables of said county, greeting:
We command you to summon Henry A. Witbord, if he shall be found in your county, personally to be and appear before the Common Pleas Court of Sparta, of said county, on the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court house in Sparta, in said Randolph county, on the first Monday of February, 1871, to answer unto Henry Gardner, in a plea of assumpsit, to the damage of said plaintiff, as he says, in the sum of three hundred ($300) dollars, and have you then and there this writ, with an endorsement thereon in what manner you have executed the same.
Witness Theodore Simpson, Clerk of our said court, and the seal thereof, at his office in Sparta, in said Randolph county, this 23d day of December, A. D., 1870.
+----------------------------------+
¦[SEAL.]¦THEODORE SIMPSON, Clerk. ¦
+----------------------------------+
[Return of Officer.]
State of Illinois, Randolph county:
I have duly served the within named Henry A. Witbord, this 13th day of January, A. D., 1871, as I am herein commanded.
EDWIN R. FOSTER, City Marshal. The defendant filed a motion to quash the writ, assigning the following special causes:
First. For that the writ is not directed to the city marshal of the city of Sparta.
Second. For that said writ, being original process, is directed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, to-wit: “To the city marshal and all sheriffs, coroners and constables of said county,” to-wit: Randolph county.
Third. For that said writ commands to summon said Witbord if found in the county.
Fourth. Writ is directed and by its terms sent beyond the jurisdictional limits of the court.
Sixth. For that there is no venue laid in said writ, that is to say, the venue of said court is not laid in said writ.
The court sustained the motion to quash the writ, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
Mr. J. BLACKBURN JONES, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN MICHAN and Mr. R. J. GODDARD, for the appellee.
The error assigned upon this record, is, sustaining a motion to quash the writ.
The writ was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Supreme Hive of Ladies of Maccabees of the Worled v. Harrington
...located. People v. Evans, 18 Ill. 361;People v. Barr, 22 Ill. 241;Covill v. Phy, 26 Ill. 432;Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ill. 203;Gardner v. Witbord, 59 Ill. 145;Dixon v. Dixon, 61 Ill. 324;Joslyn v. Dickerson, 71 Ill. 25;Reid v. Morton, 119 Ill. 118, 6 N. E. 414;Miller v. People, 183 Ill. 423......
-
Wieboldt Stores, Inc. v. Sturdy
...of the Maccabees v. Harrington, 227 Ill. 511, 81 N.E. 533;Covill v. Phy, 26 Ill. 432, 433;Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ill. 203;Gardner v. Witbord, 59 Ill. 145;Dixon v. Dixon, 61 Ill. 324;Joslyn v. Dickerson, 71 Ill. 25;Reid v. Morton, 119 Ill. 118, 6 N.E. 414. The rule is as firmly intrenched ......
-
McFarlin v. McFarlin
...limits of the city within which the court was situated. See Covill v. Phy, 26 Ill. 432, 433;Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ill. 203;Gardner v. Witbord, 59 Ill. 145;Dixon v. Dixon, 61 Ill. 324;Joslyn v. Dickerson, 71 Ill. 25;Supreme Hive Ladies of Maccabees v. Harrington, 227 Ill. 511, 81 N.E. 533......
-
Werner v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...A similar question was raised as to the city court of Sparta in Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ill. 203, and the same rule applied. In Gardner v. Witbord, 59 Ill. 145, jurisdiction of the Sparta court was again considered.It was said the territorial jurisdiction of the city court was limited by t......