Wayman v. Crozier

Citations

• 35 Ill. 156

Syllabus

<p>1. Abatement—improper service of process. In a suit in chancery against William Wayman and Jane Wayman, his wife, the return showed that the summons was served upon the latter by “William Wayman,” as deputy sheriff. A decree pro confesso was entered, and, on writ of error, prosecuted by the defendants, it was insisted the service upon Jane Wayman was not good, because made by her husband, it being presumed the “William Wayman” who served the summons was the same “ William Wayman” who was her husband and co-defendant in the suit. Held, if this were so, it would be only matter of abatement, or a motion to quash the return. The alleged improper service not being noticed in the court below, the objection cannot be taken for the first time on error.</p> <p>2. Merger of bond secured by mortgage, in a judgment at law—measure of damages on subsequent foreclosure. The rule laid down in the preceding case of Wayman and wife v. Goclirane, on this subject, is approved.</p>