Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

59 Ill. 145

Gardner v. Witbord

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1871

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1871-06-15

William P. Murphy, Judge, presiding. This was an action- of assumpsit, brought on a promissory note given by Witbord to Gardner. The question arises upon the writ, which was as follows: State of Illinois, i Randolph county.

Relies on People ex rel. Beebe v. Evans · Holmes v. Fihlenburg

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1950

6 state decisions

30187118801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Sheldon

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2The error assigned upon this record, is, sustaining a motion to quash the writ.

¶3The writ was properly directed “ to the city marshal and all sheriffs) coroners and constables,” as the act to establish the court of common pleas in the city of Sparta, in Bandolph county, expressly provides that all process shall be so directed. Session Laws of 1869, page 140, sec. 8.

¶4The venue of the court is well enough laid in the writ. The proper State and county are named in the margin according to the ordinary form, and the command in the body of the writ is, to summon the defendant, “ to be and appear before the common picas court of Sparta, of said county, on the first day of the next term thereof, to be holden at the court house in Sparta, in said Randolph county,” etc.

¶5The territorial jurisdiction of this court is limited by the constitution to the city of Sparta. The People v. Evans, 18 Ill. 361; Holmes v. Fihlenburg, 54 Ill. 203.

¶6Although the mandate of the ivrit is, “ to summon Henry A. Witbord, if he shall be found in your county,” etc., the service, if it had been shown by the return to have been made in the city of Sparta, would have been good. It is now defective, as it does not appear by the return to have been so made. But the writ itself was not void, and should not have been quashed.

¶7The judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶8Judgment reversed.

/59/ill/145 · .json · Public domain