House v. Hamilton

Citations

• 43 Ill. 185

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment—levy, where to be made. Under the statute, the officer having a writ of attachment to execute, may, if the defendant is in the act of removing his property, pursue it and make a levy in any county in this State. But, where the defendant had, several days before the suing out of the writ, removed his property to another county, and he swears that hd was not removing his property, proof that he has been negotiating to form a partnership in Missouri will not create a presumption that he was removing it, and a levy made in that county, on a writ from the county from which the property has been removed, by the sheriff of that county, will not be sustained.</p> <p>2. Same—jimsdietion. To acquire jurisdiction by the court issuing the writ, there must be service on the defendant or a levy on property in the county from which the writ issues, unless the defendant is in the act of removing his property, when the officer may pursue it and levy in another county. But, where the writ is issued to the sheriff of one county, and he goes into another and levies on property which is not being removed, the levy is unauthorized and the court fails to acquire jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. Lew—motion to quash. Where such a levy has been made, the defendant may have it set aside on a motion to quash the levy. Such a motion presents the question whether the officer might execute his writ on property permanently located in a different county from that in which the writ was issued, or whether a writ may be issued in one county and executed in another because the defendant may have intended to remove it from the latter county. A plea in abatement, denying the affidavit would alone put in issue the question of intention of removal, and not of the jurisdiction of the court.</p>