Higgins v. Bullock
| Decision Date | 30 September 1872 |
| Citation | 1872 WL 8489,66 Ill. 37 |
| Parties | JOHN HIGGINSv.W. M. BULLOCK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Woodford county.
Messrs. BELL & GREEN, for the plaintiff in error.
Messrs. BRIGGS & MEEK, for the defendant in error.
This was an action, brought in the circuit court of Woodford county, by the plaintiff as indorsee of a promissory note, against Higgins and Wright, the makers, wherein a judgment by default was rendered against the defendant Higgins.
Two errors are assigned:
1st. That there is no sufficient return of service.
The following is a copy of the return indorsed on the summons:
+--------------------------+
¦“STATE OF ILLINOIS, ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦ ¦)¦ss.¦
+--------------------+-+---¦
¦Nash County. ¦)¦ ¦
+--------------------------+
I have duly served the within by reading the same to the within named John Higgins, on this 27th day of July, 1870, as I am therein commanded. I return this writ on the 5th day of August, 1870.
ISAAC OGDEN, Sheriff.”
We take judicial notice of the names of the counties in the State, and that there is no such county in the State as Nash county. The word “Nash” is an evident clerical mistake; and the name of the county in the venue of the return is without any effect upon it.
It is said the officer making the return does not indicate in any way that he is sheriff of Wabash county. The summons is directed to the sheriff of Wabash county, commanding him to summon John Higgins if found in his county, etc., and where a person makes return upon it that he duly served it upon John Higgins as he was commanded in the summons, and signs his name to the return as sheriff, it must be intended that he was sheriff of Wabash county. The return should be taken in connection with the direction and command in the summons, and receive a reasonable construction in support of it, and not an unnatural one to vitiate it.
2d. The other error assigned is, that there is no averment in the declaration that the note was delivered to the plaintiff, and that hence the declaration fails to show a title in the plaintiff to sue as indorsee.
The note was payable to Alfred Ingalls, and the only averment in the declaration as to the assignment of the note is this: “ And the said Alfred Ingalls then and there indorsed the same to the plaintiff.” We accede to the view urged, that any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodson v. State
...458; 16 Pick. 121; 7 N.E. 631, 634; 31 N.E. 395, 399; 98 N.Y. 98, 107, 110; 17 N.E. 343, 346; 39 Ark. 353; Dill. Munn. Corp. (3d Ed.) 142; 66 Ill. 37; 77 Wis. 60 N.W. 355, 357; Black, Const. Prohib. 62, 82; 55 Cal. 550; 86 Tenn. 272; 98 N.C. 778; 98 Cal. 73; 24 L. R. A. 226; 47 N.E. 302; 71......
-
The Farmers State Bank v. Haun
...in plaintiff. 8 C. J. 887; Pryce v. Jordan (Cal.) 11 P. 185; Curtin v. Kowalsky, (Cal.) 78 P. 962; Stamper v. Gay, 3 Wyo. 321; Higgins v. Bullock, 66 Ill. 37 l. c. 39. Allegations of fact from which an indebtedness defendant to plaintiff can be inferred, sufficiently shows non-payment. 8 C.......
-
Citizens State Bank of Hamilton, Montana v. E. A. Tessman & Co.
... ... 14 Enc. of Plead. and Pr. 520; ... Snelgrove v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 5 Ala. 295; ... Pryce v. Jordan, 69 Cal. 569, 11 P. 185; Higgins ... v. Bullock, 66 Ill. 37; Rubleman v. McNichols, ... 13 Mo.App. 515; Brooks v. Edson, 7 Vt. 351; ... Perkins, Doe & Co. v. Bradley, 24 ... ...
-
Citizens' State Bank of Hamilton v. E. A. Tessman & Co.
...indorsee. 14 Enc. of Plead. and Pr. 520; Snelgrove v. Branch Bank of Mobile, 5 Ala. 295; Pryce v. Jordan, 68 Cal. 569,11 Pac. 185;Higgins v. Bullock, 66 Ill. 37; Rubelman v. McNichol, 13 Mo. App. 584; Brooks v. Edson, 7 Vt. 351;Perkins Doe & Co. v. Bradley, 24 Vt. 66;Myers v. Farmers' State......