Wasson v. William D. Cone.
| Citation | 1877 WL 9657,86 Ill. 46 |
| Parties | WILLIAM WASSONv.WILLIAM D. CONE. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. JOSEPH W. COCHRAN, Judge, presiding.
This was a suit commenced by Cone against Wasson, before a justice of the peace, by attachment, the writ being levied upon property of the defendant. An appeal was taken by the defendant to the circuit court, and finally to this court.
Mr. L. O. WILSON, for the appellant.
Messrs. CRATTY BROTHERS, for the appellee.
In this case defendant appeared by attorney and went to trial before the justice of the peace. He found for plaintiff and rendered a personal judgment against defendant, but rendered no judgment against the property levied on under the writ of attachment. From this judgment defendant appealed to the circuit court of Peoria county, and on a trial by the court, by consent, without a jury, the judge trying the case found for plaintiff $25, the amount of the judgment rendered by the justice, and rendered judgment for the same, and awarded execution generally, without any order for the sale of property attached, or for its release or discharge.
Before the trial defendant entered a motion to quash the writ of attachment, which was overruled. And after the evidence was heard he renewed the motion, and, in addition, that the suit be dismissed; but this motion was also denied. Defendant brings the record to this court on appeal, and urges a reversal.
We have examined the evidence in the transcript with care, and are satisfied that it sustains the finding of the court below. The court could not, on the evidence, have found otherwise, and there was no error in rendering the judgment for the amount found by the court.
It is claimed that the affidavit, the levy, and return are not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the property, nor the notices posted by the constable to give jurisdiction of the person of defendant. He appeared in the justice's court by attorney, and this conferred ample jurisdiction of his person; and it does not matter whether the notices were or not sufficient. The notices were intended for service, and although they should be defective, like any other insufficient service--a want of conformity to the requirements of the statute in giving the notice--the defect would be waived by appearing and going to trial. Where a defendant enters his appearance, it has been repeatedly held by this court that it does not matter whether summons is good, the service defective, or in fact whether there has been any process in the case. The object of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kerns v. McAulay
...v. Gilbert, 33 Mo.App. 259; Schieb v. Baldwin, 22 How. Pr. 278; Amyett v. Bachhouse, 7 N.C. 63; Perry v. Mendenhall, 57 N.C. 157; Wasson v. Cone, 86 Ill. 46; Lowry v. 75 Ind. 508; Smith v. Scott, 86 Ind. 346; Sannes v. Ross, 105 Ind. 558; United States Mtg. Co. v. Henderson, 111 Ind. 24.) T......
-
Hogue v. Corbit
... ... Dryden, Id. 187; Young v. Campbell, 5 Gilman, 80;Kerr v. Swallow, 33 Ill. 379. The case of Wasson v. Cone, 86 Ill. 46, is not here in point. That was not an attachment suit commenced in [41 N.E ... ...
-
Petty v. People
...412;Bills v. Stanton, 69 Ill. 51;Radcliff v. Noyes, 43 Ill. 318;Abbott v. Semple, 25 Ill. 107;O'Brien v. Haynes, 61 Ill. 494;Wasson v. Cone, 86 Ill. 46. If, from the entire language of the recognizance, it can be seen that the circuit court was meant by the words criminal court, the require......
-
Love v. Pavlovich
...105 Ind. 558, 5 N.E. 699; U.S. Mortgage Co. v. Henderson, 111 Ind. 24, 12 N.E. 88; Wright v. Manns, 111 Ind. 422, 12 N.E. 160; Wasson v. Cone, 86 Ill. 46; Staunton v. Harris, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) Hillman v. Werner, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 586. It follows that whatever lien was acquired by the plaintif......