Rattan v. Stone

Decision Date31 December 1842
Citation4 Ill. 540,3 Scam. 540,1842 WL 3811
PartiesMerrill E. Rattan et al., plaintiffs in error,v.Caleb Stone et al., defendants in error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Error to Pike.

Where a summons from the Circuit Court is made returnable to the fourth day of the term, it is not merely voidable, but absolutely void, and should be quashed, on motion, and a final judgment rendered against the plaintiff for costs; but where the court, upon quashing the writ, continued the cause with an order for an alias summons, and such summons was issued: Held, that the alias summons might be considered as the commencement of a new suit; that the words “as you have been before commanded” in the writ, might be regarded as surplusage, and the writ amended in the Circuit Court, by striking out those words. b

It is erroneous to render judgment against two defendants, when process is served on one only. c

Wm. Thomas, for the plaintiffs in error, cited Nye v. Wright, 2 Scam., 222; Bunn v. Thomas et al., 2 Johns., 189; Cramer v. Van Alstyn, 9 Johns., 385; Merriweather et al. v. Smith et al., 2 Scam., 31; Ogden v. Bowen, 2 Scam., 33; Ryder v. Alleyn, 2 Scam., 474.

N. D. Strong and Junius Hall, for the defendants in error, cited Morgan's Ex'rs v. Morgan, 2 Bibb., 390; 2 Pirtle's Dig. 9, sec. 3.

SEMPLE, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by John B. Glover and Caleb Stone against Merrill E. Rattan and James Davis, in the Pike Circuit Court. The summons was made returnable to the fourth day of the April term, 1838, and executed on Rattan alone. At the July term, on motion of the defendant's attorney, the Circuit Court ordered the writ to be quashed. The cause was then continued, and an alias summons awarded. The alias summons was executed on James Davis; Merrill E. Rattan not found in the county. At the September term, 1838, judgment was rendered against both of the defendants, for the damages assessed by reason of the non-payment of the note sued on, and costs of suit.

The cause was brought up by writ of error. The assignment of error questions the legality of continuing the cause, and ordering an alias summons to be issued after the original summons was quashed, and also of entering judgment against both defendants, when only one had been served with process.

This court is of opinion that as the original summons was made returnable to the fourth day of the term, instead of the first day, as required by the statute, it was void, and not merely voidable. The Circuit Court decided correctly in ordering it to be quashed. But instead of awarding an alias summons and continuing the cause, a final judgment ought to have been given against the plaintiffs for costs.

The alias summons, however, may be considered as the commencement of a new suit. The words “as you have been before commanded,” may be considered as surplusage, and the summons might have been amended in the Circuit Court, by striking out those words. This last summons having been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Keal v. Rhydderck
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1925
    ...would bind the mother of the child. Schmitt v. Devine, 164 Ill. 537, 45 N. E. 974;Culver v. Phelps, 130 Ill. 217, 22 N. E. 809;Rattan v. Stone, 3 Scam. 540. Where the record shows that notice was not given as required by law the court does not acquire jurisdiction of the person. Forrest v. ......
  • Meserve v. Clark.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 25, 1886
  • The Hekla Ins. Co. v. Schroeder
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 31, 1881
    ...MOORE & PEET, for appellant; that before an alias writ can issue there must be a return of the original writ “not found,” cited Rattan v. Stone, 3 Scam. 540. After the return day the writ of December 16 was dead: Hitchcock v. Haight, 2 Gilm. 604. To avoid the statute by issuance of a second......
  • Pickering v. Mizner
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1847

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