Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ill. 269

Peeples v. Peeples

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1857

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1857-12-15

This was a proceeding instituted in the Coles Circuit Court, by Savilla Peeples, of the county of Edgar, against Samuel Peeples, of the county of Hancock, all in the State of Illinois, praying divorce, alimony, etc. The record shows that Savilla Peeples filed in the Coles Circuit Court, on the 18th day of February, A. D. 1856, her bill of complaint, in which she charges her intermarriage with Samuel Peeples, (whom she makes defendant thereto,) their cohabitation for a…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1971

6 state decisions

201857186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Breese, J.

¶1The question in this case is as to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Coles county.

¶2The record shows that complainant was a resident of Edgar county when the bill was filed, and the defendant a resident of Hancock county, to which the process was sent from Coles. The domicil of both parties when living together, and at the time of abandonment by defendant, was Coles county.

¶3The defendant appeared to the suit and filed his answer, and submitted his defense on the merits. No objection was made to the jurisdiction of the court until after trial and verdict, when a motion was made to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.

¶4The Circuit Courts have general jurisdiction of the subject of divorces, and the defendant in this case voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction over his person.

¶5The objection being of a dilatory character, should have been made before trial, by motion or by plea in abatement — answering to the merits, waives the objection. Gillilan v. Gray, 14 Ill. R. 416.

¶6The decree is affirmed, with costs.

¶7Decree affirmed.

/19/ill/269 · .json · Public domain