Hemmer v. Wolfed

Citations

• 124 Ill. 435
• 16 N.E. 652

Syllabus

<p>1. Process—mistake in date of summons. A bill in chancery was filed May 5, but the summons appearing in the record bore date April 5, and required the defendants to appear before the court “on the third Monday of May, instant.” The writ came to the hands of the sheriff on May 5: Held, that the writ would be regarded as having been issued in May, and the use of the word April, a mere clerical error.</p> <p>2. Same—service upon minors by delivering copy to a member of the family, etc. On bill in chancery by a step-father, against his step-children, to subject their land to sale, the service of the summons by the delivery of a copy thereof to the complainant, informing him of its contents, will confer no jurisdiction on the court as to the persons of the defendants, and a decree of sale upon such service will be void as to them.</p> <p>3. Same—-recital of service in decree—presumption. Where a decree is entered in a chancery cause at a term subsequent to the return term, and it recites that the defendants were duly served with process, but the service, as shown by the record, is insufficient, it will be presumed, in favor of such finding, that a second summons was issued and served to the subsequent term.</p> <p>4. Where, however, a decree is rendered at the return term of a summons. the service of which is insufficient to give jurisdiction, a recital in the decree of proper service will not render the decree valid. The record, in such case, must prevail oyer the recitals in the decree.</p>