Greenwood v. Murphy

Citations

• 131 Ill. 604
• 23 N.E. 421

Syllabus

<p>1. ElioibiiiIty to office—jurisdiction of the county court to determine. The county courts have no authority, under the statute, to hear and determine the question of the eligibility of a person to any particular office.</p> <p>2. The statute provides that the county courts may hear and determine contests of election of certain specified officers,—that is, to ascertain and declare which of the contestants has been duly elected. But the question whether or not a person already elected possesses the necessary legal qualifications for the office, must be determined in another way and by a different proceeding,—as, by information in the nature of a quo warranto in the name of the People.</p> <p>3. Service of process—in ca'se of contested election—of the mode. Summons must be served on the defendant in a proceeding to contest his election, in the same manner as in chancery cases. A return showing service by reading, only, fails to give the court jurisdiction of the person.</p> <p>i. The statutory requirements for service of process must be strictly complied with, and the return of the officer should show such compliance, otherwise the court will not obtain jurisdiction.</p>