Martin v. Hargardine

Citations

• 46 Ill. 322

Syllabus

<p>1. Summons—of the sheriffs return. WheVe it is alleged that the three defend dants, in a proceeding in chancery, had service of summons by one copy only, and the sheriff’s return shows that the writ was served by reading and delivering a true copy of the same “to the within named” persons, naming the three defendants, and charges upon the margin, fees for serving three copies—the taxing these costs is a part of his official return, and removes all doubt upon the point, as to the sufficiency of such service. ■</p> <p>2. Evidence in chancery—how preserved. Where oral evidence is introduced on the hearing of a- suit in chancery, if the facts proved are recited in the decree, it is a sufficient preservation of the evidence.</p> <p>3. Judicial sale—of lands m masse. Lands lying contiguous, if offered in separate parcels, without receiving any bids, may be offered and sold in a body.</p> <p>4. Correctmo mistake—relinquishment of dower. Where the husband and wife joined in the execution of a mortgage, which by mistake described the-wrong tract of land, a court of chancery has no power to correct the mistake, so that the relinquishment of dower shall apply to land not described in the mortgage, although such land was intended by all the parties to be described therein.</p> <p>5. Bills taken peo confesso—what fads are taken as confessed. Where a bill is taken pro confesso, which merely avers the execution of the mortgage by the husband and wife, making no allegation in the bill that the wife released her dower, but makes the mortgage a part of the bill, in which her acknowledgment was insufficient under the statute to operate as a relinquishment of dower, the bill thereby failing to show a release of dower, although taken pro confesso, must be reversed as to her.</p>