Iles v. Heidenreich

Citation111 N.E. 524,271 Ill. 480
Decision Date16 February 1916
Docket NumberNo. 10261.,10261.
PartiesILES et al. v. HEIDENREICH.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, Judge.

Suit by Robert S. Iles and another against Julius Heidenreich and others. Decree for complainants, and the named defendant brings error. Cause transferred.

Farlin H. Ball, of Oak Park, and G. A. Buresh, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Thompson, Moore & Clark and Robert S. Iles and Robert D. Martin, both of Chicago (Edwin White Moore, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

CRAIG, J.

The defendants in error, Robert S. Iles and Robert D. Martin, filed their bill in chancery in the superior court of Cook county in the nature of a creditors' bill against Julius Heidenreich, Ida M. Heidenreich, and Michael Zimmer, the latter the sheriff of Cook county, for the purpose of subjecting money in the hands of said sheriff to the payment of a judgment which defendants in error had recovered against Julius Heidenreich in the municipal court of the city of Chicago. Julius Heidenreich and Ida M. Heidenreich filed their pleas in bar to the bill of complaint, denying that the municipal court of Chicago had jurisdiction to enter said judgment against Julius Heidenreich.

The original bill charges, among other things, that on August 3, 1911, the defendants in error commenced suit against Julius Heidenreich in the municipal court of Chicago in an action of the first class, and that on August 12, 1911, he entered his appearance in writing in said cause; that on the 12th of August he filed a written pleading known as an affidavit of merits, and thereafter appeared in person in said cause; that a trial of the issues so joined was had before the court and a jury, and on the 18th day of May, 1912, being one of the regular days of said court, defendants in error recovered a judgment against the defendant in said court, Julius Heidenreich, for the sum of $1,500 and costs of suit. The bill also sets up a fraudulent assignment of a certificate of sale obtained by Julius Heidenreich to Ida M. Heidenreich and her claim to the money paid to the sheriff of Cook county in the redemption proceedings from the sale on which such certificate was issued, and alleges other fraudulent acts of Julius Heidenreich on which the creditors' bill is predicated, and prays that such redemption money in the hands of the sheriff be subjected to the judgment of defendants in error.

By his first plea Julius Heidenreich set up that the suit in the municipal court of Chicago in which the defendants in error recovered a judgment against him was designated and referred to as of the first class, and that the statute provides that in all actions of this class no suits shall be commenced in the municipal court unless the defendant, if there be but one defendant, resides or is found within the city of Chicago; that, in the suit brought in the municipal court of Chicago and the summons served in said suit, he, (Julius Heidenreich) was the sole and only defendant; that at the time said suit was brought, summons served upon him, and judgment rendered, he was not a resident of the city of Chicago, nor was he at any time served with summons within the city limits of the city of Chicago, nor was he prior to the rendition of the judgment in said proceedings found within the city of Chicago, but at the time the suit was instituted he was a resident of the village of Morgan Park, in Cook county, Ill.; and that summons was served upon him at his residence on Fairfield avenue, in the village of Morgan Park; and that at the time of the institution of said proceedings and rendition of said judgment he resided, and still resides, in Morgan Park, which is outside the limits of the city of Chicago. It is further set out in the plea that the return made by the bailiff of the municipal court of Chicago upon the summons served upon said defendant, Julius Heidenreich, in said municipal court suit, is as follows:

‘Served this writ on the within named Julius Heidenreich by delivering a copy thereof to him, and at the same time informing him of the contents thereof, in the city of Chicago, this third day of August, 1911.

Thomas M. Hunter, Bailiff.

‘By M. L. Morgan, Deputy.’

It is further set out in the plea that the return on said summons was made by the bailiff of the municipal court of the city of Chicago under the mistaken belief that said village of Morgan Park, the residence of said defendant and the place at which said summons was served upon him, was on the day of service of summons and the date of the return thereof a part of the city of Chicago by virtue of an attempted annexation of said village to said city of Chicago at an election held April 4, 1911; that in said suit the municipal court of the city of Chicago was without jurisdiction, and had no right or authority, in law, to entertain said suit or to proceed in said cause, and the said judgment is void and of no legal effect. The second plea is identical with the first plea, except as to the allegation of nonjurisdiction, which is as follows:

‘That in said suit the municipal court of the city of Chicago was without jurisdiction, and had no right or authority, in law, to enter a judgment against the defendant, Julius Heidenreich, and the said judgment is void and of no legal effect.’

The first two pleas filed by Ida M. Heidenreich set forth substantially the same facts as are set forth in the above pleas of Julius Heidenreich.

A motion was made by defendants in error to overrule the first two pleas filed by Julius and Ida M. Heidenreich. The court held the pleas insufficient, in law, to constitute a defense to the bill, and both Julius and Ida M. Heidenreich stood by their pleas. The court heard no evidence, but entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, finding, among other things, that on August 3, 1911, defendants in error brought their suit in the municipal court of Chicago against Julius Heidenreich; that he was served with summons, and on August 12, 1911, appeared in court and filed his appearance and made a defense to said action; that on May 18, 1912, the defendants in error recovered a judgment in that suit against him for $1,500 and costs of suit, no part of which has been paid; and that the same is due and owing; and that certain redemption money in the hands of Michael Zimmer, sheriff, claimed by Ida M. Heidenreich by reason of the assignment of a certificate of sale, which assignment the court found to be fraudulent be subjected to the payment of said judgment. Julius Heidenreich has sued out a writ of error from this court seeking to reverse the decree of the superior court....

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Heine v. Degen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 5 February 1936
    ...to strike them but to do what the record shows he did, viz., to overrule them. [199 N.E. 836] The appellees rely upon Iles v. Heidenreich, 271 Ill. 480, 111 N.E. 524,Odin Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission, 297 Ill. 392, 130 N.E. 704, and McNeil & Higgins Co. v. Neenah Cheese & Cold Storage ......
  • United Biscuit Co. of America v. Voss Truck Lines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 27 November 1950
    ......501] Iles v. Heidenreich, 271 Ill. 480, 111 N.E. 524, 525, that this constituted a privilege which may be waived by appearance, saying: 'It has been frequently ......
  • Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo, Case Number: 21452
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 6 December 1932
    ......732, 33 P. 15; Bates, Pleading, Practice and Forms (4th Ed.) section 554a; First Nat. Bank v. Geneseo Town Co., 51 Kan. 215, 32 P. 902; Iles" v. Heidenreich, 271 Ill. 485.         2. Same -- Motion to Quash Held Insufficient to Raise Specific Jurisdictional Question.        \xC2"......
  • Hines v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 5-84-0766
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 19 September 1985
    ......of America v. Voss Truck Lines, Inc. (1950), 407 Ill. 488, 95 N.E.2d 439, the supreme court quoted as follows from its 1916 opinion in Iles v. Heidenreich (1916), 271 Ill. 480, 485, 111 N.E. 524, 525:. " 'It has been frequently and uniformly held that the [venue] statute confers a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT