Clark v. Thompson
Citations
- 47 Ill. 25
Syllabus
<p>1. Jurisdiction—in proceedings to sell real estate of a decedent.—how acquired oner the minor heirs. In a proceeding by an administrator, to sell the real estate of his intestate, unless the mode pointed out by statute, whereby the court can acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the minor heirs, is pursued, the court acquires no jurisdiction of the persons of such heirs, and as against them, the proceedings are void.</p> <p>2. Guardian and ward—guardian cannot admit service of summons for his ward. And, in such case, a guardian cannot admit service of the summons for the minor heirs.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction—presumption of, in favor of courts of general jurisdiction—may he rebutted in collateral proceedings. The presumption that jurisdiction of the person was acquired, ill a cause adjudicated by a court of general jurisdiction, is liable in all collateral proceedings to be rebutted.</p> <p>4. Same—when presumption of, rebutted. When the record shows service which is insufficient, and there is no finding of the court from which it may be inferred that there was other service, or appearance, then the presumption that the court had jurisdiction of the person, is rebutted, and it must be held that the court acted upon the insufficient service.</p> <p>5. Jurisdiction—cannot be conferred by the answer of a guardian ad litem, where there has been no service upon the heirs. In a proceeding to sell the real estate of a decedent by his administrator, where the court did not acquire jurisdiction of the persons of the heirs, in the mode pointed out by the statute, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the appointment of a guardian ad litem, and his answer for the heirs—as to them, a decree in such case, is a nullity.</p> <p>6. Curtesy—character of th* estate. Prior to the act of 1861, known as the married woman’s act, an estate by the curtesy, conferred a present existing right, giving to the owner the authority to use and enjoy it, until it became extinct.</p> <p>7. Ple
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Treadway v. EastburnTexas Supreme Court· 1881-06-03· cited 103×
- Cullen v. StevensIllinois Supreme Court· 1944-11-22· cited 30×
- Ortman v. KaneIllinois Supreme Court· 1945-03-21· cited 29×
- Law v. GrommesIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-10-11· cited 27×
- McNeer v. McNeerIllinois Supreme Court· 1892-11-02· cited 26×
- Sharp v. SharpIllinois Supreme Court· 1928-12-20· cited 25×
- Forrest v. FeyIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-10-24· cited 25×
- Milner v. GatlinTexas Commission of Appeals· 1924-05-21· cited 23×
- Swearengen v. GulickIllinois Supreme Court· 1873-01-15· cited 20×
- Botsford v. O'ConnerIllinois Supreme Court· 1870-09-15· cited 19×
- Werner v. W. H. Shons Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1930-10-25· cited 16×
- In Re CashIllinois Supreme Court· 1943-05-20· cited 13×
- Shane v. PeoplesNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1913-04-22· cited 13×
- Fell v. YoungIllinois Supreme Court· 1872-01-15· cited 12×
- Williams v. WilliamsIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-10-16· cited 11×
- Donaldson v. CopelandIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-02-18· cited 9×
- Donlin v. HettingerIllinois Supreme Court· 1870-09-15· cited 7×
- Indiana & Arkansas Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. BrinkleyEighth Circuit· 1908-10-28· cited 7×
- Merriott v. WhitsellSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1972-02-21· cited 6×
- Jewett v. Iowa Land Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1896-05-29· cited 6×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.