Barnes v. Hazleton

Citations

• 50 Ill. 429

Syllabus

<p>1. Service oe process—upon several defendants. The return upon a summons in chancery against several defendants, was, “ This writ personally served by delivering copies of the same to the within named defendants:” Held, that it would be implied the process was served by copy on each individual defendant, and was regular.</p> <p>2. Infants. Against an infant nothing is to be intended, but everything must be proved.</p> <p>3. Same—bringing a portion into hotchpot. Where an infant defendant in chancery represents, in the distribution of the property involved, a person to whom it is alleged an advancement urns made which ought to be brought into hotchpot, it must be proven, as against the infant, that the advancement was equal to the share thus represented, to bar the infant’s rights; the minor could not bring the advancement into hotchpot, nor be charged with laches in omitting to do so.</p> <p>4. Same—of the character of decree to be rendered against an infant. It is no objection to a decree against an infant, that it is absolute in form in the first instance. Under the practice in chancery, in this State, that is the character of the decree, and no day is given to show cause, after the infant becomes of age; instead thereof, our statute gives to a minor five years after attaining full age, to bring his writ of error.</p>