Holmes v. Fihlenburg
| Decision Date | 30 June 1870 |
| Parties | JOSEPH B. HOLMESv.CHARLES FIHLENBURG. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of the city of Sparta; the Hon. WILLIAM P. MURPHY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, instituted in the court below by Charles Fihlenburg, against Joseph B. Holmes. The summons was issued the sixteenth of October, 1869, directed “to the City Marshal and all Sheriffs, Coroners and Constables of Randolph county, greeting,” commanding them to summon Joseph B. Holmes, if to be found in their county, to appear before the common pleas court of Sparta, in said county, on the first Monday of November, to answer the plaintiff, etc. concluding in the usual form.
The return endorsed on the writ was as follows: “I have personally served the within summons by reading to the within named Joseph B. Holmes, on the eighteenth day of October, A. D. 1869.
JOHN M. SKELLY,
City Marshal city of Sparta.”
The declaration contained the usual form of the common counts for labor, and services, etc. And the defendant filed his plea to the jurisdiction of the court, averring that, before and at the time of the commencement of the suit, the plaintiff and the defendant were residents of the city of Chester, in the county of Randolph and State of Illinois; that neither of them resided within the city of Sparta at the time, nor since the commencement of the suit; that neither one of the several causes of action or promises mentioned in the declaration accrued, or were otherwise due or made payable in said city of Sparta; but that each and all of said several causes of action, arose in the city of Chester, in the county aforesaid. Also, averring that the defendant had not been found or served with process in said cause, in the aforesaid city of Sparta, and praying judgment of the writ and declaration. Upon a demurrer to this plea being sustained, evidence was heard, the damages assessed, and final judgment rendered for the plaintiff. To reverse which judgment, the defendant appeals, and assigns for error the sustaining the demurrer to defendant's plea to the jurisdiction.
Mr. THOMAS G. ALLEN and Mr. WILLIAM C. JONES, for the appellant.
Mr. R. J. GODDARD and Mr. W. C. MCQUISTON, for the appellee. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE LAWRENCE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This record presents the question whether the legislature, in creating the court of common pleas in the city of Sparta, in Randolph county, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Supreme Hive of Ladies of Maccabees of the Worled v. Harrington
...city limits wherein such court is 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. ......
-
Wieboldt Stores, Inc. v. Sturdy
...604, 99 N.E. 669;Supreme Hive Ladies 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. 4......
- McFarlin v. McFarlin
-
Werner v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
...the jurisdiction of the city court beyond the city limits. 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 ......