Swearengen v. Gulick
Citations
- 67 Ill. 208
Syllabus
<p>1. Jubisdictiois—administrator's sale of land. In a proceeding by an administrator, in 1847, for an order to sell the lands of his intestate to pay debts, the circuit court, on the cross-bill of the widow, in the decree of sale directed her dower to be set off in the premises: Held, that, as the court acquired jurisdiction to order the sale by the petition of the administrator, it could not be ousted of the same by the widow’s cross-bill for dower and the proceedings under it.</p> <p>3. Same—when presumed. It is a rule of uniform application, that, in relation to superior courts, or courts of general jurisdiction, nothing is presumed to be out of their jurisdiction but that which specially appears to be so; but, on the contrary, nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an inferior court but that which is expressly alleged. This rule is limited to collateral proceedings, and when the record of a judgment or decree is relied on collaterally jurisdiction must be presumed in favor of a court of general jurisdiction, although it be not alleged or fail to appear in the record.</p> <p>3. Samis—presumption, how overcome. Where a judgment or decree is silent as to service, and the summons in the case shows a want of, or an insufficient service, the presumption of jurisdiction will be overcome. Such presumption is liable to be rebutted.</p> <p>4. Where the papers and flics were lost in a proceeding by an administrator to sell land to pay debts, and the record showed only a decree of sale, it was held, in a collateral proceeding attacking the sale, that it would be presumed that the circuit court ordering such sale had jurisdiction of the persons of the heirs at law of the intestate.</p> <p>5. Administbatob’s sale—Mrs need not he made formal parties. In an application, under the Revised Statutes of 1845, by an administrator for an order to sell land to pay debts, it -was not essential to the jurisdiction of the court that the heirs of the intestate should
Judges: Walker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Forrest v. FeyIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-10-24· cited 25×
- Figge v. RowlenIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-04-17· cited 23×
- Hawk v. DaySupreme Court of Iowa· 1910-06-16· cited 19×
- Reedy v. CamfieldIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-01-17· cited 18×
- Bradley v. DroneIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-10-19· cited 17×
- Benefield v. AlbertIllinois Supreme Court· 1890-04-22· cited 16×
- Field v. PeeplesIllinois Supreme Court· 1899-06-17· cited 13×
- Harrow v. GroganIllinois Supreme Court· 1905-12-20· cited 7×
- Cassell v. JosephIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-02-19· cited 4×
- Kanorowski v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1904-04-11· cited 4×
- Sloane v. MartinNew York Supreme Court· 1893-06-01· cited 3×
- Bannon v. PeopleAppellate Court of Illinois· 1877-12-15· cited 3×
- Russell v. HoustonTennessee Supreme Court· 1905-09-15· cited 2×
- Faas v. O'ConnerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1880-08-05· cited 1×
- Hawthorne v. Cartier Lumber Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1905-07-11· cited 1×
- Jackson v. MulzerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1912-11-07
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.