The Union Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. the First Nat'l Bank of Centreville

• Decision Date: 30 September 1878
• Citation: 90 Ill. 56,1878 WL 10106
• Parties: THE UNION NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGOv.THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CENTREVILLE, IOWA.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

90 Ill. 56

1878 WL 10106 (Ill.)

THE UNION NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO

v.THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CENTREVILLE, IOWA.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1878.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.

On the 7th of September, 1876, George Kappes and Francis Eggerman sued out of the Superior Court of Cook county a writ of attachment against The First National Bank of Centreville, Iowa, and caused to be inserted in the writ the name of The Union National Bank of Chicago, to be summoned as a garnishee in the cause.

On the 3d of October, 1876, the sheriff of Cook county, in whose hands the writ had been placed, returned the same with the following indorsement:

“No property found in my county, and the within named defendants not found. Served this writ on the within named, The Union National Bank of Chicago, by delivering a copy thereof to G. W. Ives, cashier of said Bank, this 7th day of September, A. D. 1876; the president of the within named bank not found in my county, this 2d day of October, A. D. 1876.”

On the 18th of November, 1876, The Union National Bank of Chicago entered its appearance for the purpose of moving to quash the return to the writ, only a conditional judgment having been previously rendered against it, and thereupon moved that the return be quashed because it is untrue, which motion was supported by affidavits showing that the writ had not been served upon G. W. Ives, cashier of the bank, as the return recites.

This motion was overruled, but to that ruling there seems to have been no exception.

And afterwards, on the same day, a plea on behalf of the bank was filed by its attorneys, which, omitting the caption, is as follows:

“And the said Union National Bank of Chicago, by Lorin Grant Pratt, its attorney, comes and appears for the purpose of filing this plea to the writ of attachment issued in the above cause, and for no other purpose whatever, and defends, etc., and says, that the said writ of attachment purporting to be a garnishee process against said Union National Bank, was never served on the said Union National Bank of Chicago, and further says that the return on the back of said writ of attachment of said pretended service purporting to be made on said Union National Bank of Chicago, on the seventh day of September, A. D. 1876, is wholly untrue and false, and this the said Union National Bank of Chicago is ready to verify, wherefore it prays judgment...