Piggott v. Snell

Citations

• 59 Ill. 106

Syllabus

<p>1. Return op service, in chancery—its requisites. The return of service upon a chancery summons was as follows: “ I have served the within writ upon the within named Susan J. Piggott, by leaving a true copy of the same with James A. Piggott, a white person of the family, above the age of ten years, and informing the said James A. Piggott of the contents thereof, this 17th day of February, A. D. 1869: ” -Held, the return was defective in not stating that the copy was left at the usual place of abode of the defendant, and for that reason was insufficient tó confer jurisdiction'of her person. Where the service is by copy, the return must show a strict compliance witli the statute.</p> <p>3. Married women—whether service upon the husband sufficient. The common law rule, that service of summons, against husband and wife, on the husband alone is good against both, is so far changed by the legisla^ tien in this State in respect to the right of property of married women, that whenever it is sought by a judicial proceeding to affect the rights of prop- ■ erty of a married woman, she must be served with process.</p> <p>3. And even at common law, it lias been held necessary, where; the plaintiff is seeking relief out of the separate estate of the wife, that the wife should be served.</p> <p>■4. So, in a suit in chancery against husband and wife, to foreclose a mortgage executed by both, and there was service upon the husband alone, it was held to be erroneous to decree a foreclosure against both the defendants, although it did not appear wliat was the nature of the wife’s - interest in the mortgaged premises.</p>