Mahony v. Davis

Citations

• 44 Ill. 288

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice—jurisdiction to send process out of county. Under the act of 1861, amendatory of our practice act, a sole defendant cannot be sued out of the county where he resides, or may be found, unless the contract upon which the suit is brought, was actually made in the county where suit is brought, and the plaintiff resides in that county.</p> <p>2. Same. And when a party living in La Salle county gave in that county an order to the traveling agent of a merchant residing in Cook county, for the purchase of certain goods, upon which they were sent to him, such contract cannot be sued upon in Cook county, and process sent to, and served upon, the defendant in La Salle county.</p> <p>3. Same. Such contract cannot be said to have been “actually made” in Cook county; as the sense in which those words are used in the act, evidently has reference to the actual presence of the parties, and not to a constructive presence, in the form of an offer by letter, or verbally transmitted.</p> <p>4 Same—in cases tried by the court—motion for a new trial is not necessary. In cases tried by the court, it is not necessary that a motion for a new trial should be made, in order that the evidence in the case may be reviewed in this court.</p> <p>5. Same—motion confined to cases tried before a jury. It is only to cases when a trial is had by a jury, that the practice of moving for a new trial is confined.</p>