West v. Schnebly

Citations

• 54 Ill. 523

Syllabus

<p>1. Cloud upon title—when relief granted. Where a party seeks to remove a cloud upon his title to land, and it appears he has himself no title to the premises, the relief can not be granted.</p> <p>2. So where a party sought relief of that character, claiming title by virtue of a sale under an attachment levied on the defendants’ equitable interest in the premises, which at that time was not subject to attachment, and there being no personal service, the relief sought was denied, the attachment proceeding being void for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. Attachment—-jurisdiction. In order to acquire jurisdiction in an attachment suit, there must be either service on the defendant, or on his property, subject to attachment.</p> <p>4 Same—of an equitable interest in land. Prior to the passage of the act of March 31,1869, an equitable interest in land was not subject to attachment.</p> <p>5. Pleadinh in ohanceby—consto'uction thereof. A party claiming title to a tract of land by virtue of a sale under an attachment, filed a bill in chancery to remove a cloud upon his title. The attachment proceeding not appearing in the record further than as stated in the bill, which alleged that “ the complainant commenced the suit by attachment and attached the land, and that a special execution issued,” it was held, as the bill must be taken most strongly against the complainant, to be the fair intendment that attaching the land was the only execution of the writ, and that there was no personal service.</p>