Proctor v. Proctor
| Decision Date | 17 April 1905 |
| Parties | PROCTOR v. PROCTOR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Frank Baker, Judge.
Suit by Nettie M. Proctor against Marion O. Proctor. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed in part.
Clarence A. Burley and William H. McSurely (Edward R. Hills, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
The defendant in error filed her bill in the circuit court of Cook county on the 18th day of April, 1901. The bill alleged the marriage of the parties, desertion for over two years on the part of plaintiff in error, and prayed that the marriage be dissolved, and that the plaintiff in error be required to pay permanent alimony and solicitor's fees. No personal service was had in this state upon the plaintiff in error. The service on the plaintiff in error was by copy of the bill, with notice of commencement of suit, and was made at Piqua, Ohio, his place of residence. No appearance was entered by or for the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error was defaulted, and at the trial of the cause the bill was taken pro confesso. The court decreed that the marriage between the defendant in error and the plaintiff in error be dissolved, and that the defendant in error recover of the plaintiff in error the sum of $5 a week as alimony, and the sum of $50 solicitor's fees, together with an undivided one-third interest in a house and lot belonging to the plaintiff in error, situated in the city of Piqua, county of Miami and state of Ohio. From the above decree the plaintiff in error sued out a writ of error from this court to reverse the decree in so far as it relates to the recovery of $5 per week as alimony, $50 as solicitor's fees, and an undivided one-third interest in a house and lot belonging to plaintiff in error, situated in the city of Piqua, county of Miami and state of Ohio. The record shows plaintiff in error had no property within the state. The grounds relied on are that the court did not acquire such jurisdiction of the person of plaintiff in error as authorized it to enter the money decree against him, and did not have jurisdiction to enter any decree affecting real estate in the state of Ohio.
That the court had no such jurisdiction of the person of plaintiff in error as authorized a money decree or decree in personam seems to be settled by the case of Cloyd v. Trotter, 118 Ill. 391, 9 N. E. 507. In that a case a bill was filed to remove a cloud from real estate situated in this state. James C. Cloyd, the defendant to the bill, resided in the city of New York, and service was had upon him in that city by a copy of the bill, and notice, as in the case at bar. The defendant defaulted, and the relief prayed was granted, and a judgment for costs against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McElreath v. McElreath
...the reasoning in Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 3, 54 L.Ed. 65, 23 L.R.A.,N.S., 924, 17 Ann.Cas. 853; Proctor v. Proctor, 215 Ill. 275, 74 N.E. 145, 69 L.R.A. 673; Burton-Lingo Co. v. Patton, 15 N.M. 304, 107 P. 679, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 420; Hart v. Sansom, 110 U.S. 151, 3 S.Ct. 586, 28 L......
-
Fall v. Fall
... ... F. Cas. 154; Massie v. Watts , 6 Cranch (U. S.), 148, ... 3 L.Ed. 181; Hawley v. James , 7 Paige Ch. 213, 32 ... Am. Dec. 623; Proctor v. Ferebee , 1 Ired. Eq ... 143." See also Cooley v. Scarlett , 38 Ill. 316; ... Westlake, Private International Law, 64. Proctor v ... ...
-
Fall v. Fall
...also, Cooley v. Scarlett, 38 Ill. 316, 87 Am. Dec. 298; Westlake's Private International Law, 64; Proctor v. Proctor, 215 Ill. 275, 74 N. E. 145, 69 L. R. A. 673, 106 Am. St. Rep. 168, and monographic note. In Wimer v. Wimer, 82 Va. 890, 5 S. E. 536, 3 Am. St. Rep. 127, it is said, speaking......
-
Schmidt v. Schmidt
...882;Dillon v. Starin, 44 Neb. 881, 883, 63 N. W. 12;Middleworth v. McDowell, 49 Ind. 386;Proctor v. Proctor, 215 Ill. 275, 277, 74 N. E. 145,69 L. R. A. 673, 106 Am. St. Rep. 168,2 Ann. Cas. 819. As already pointed out, this principle is equally applicable to a proceeding like the present. ......