Zepp v. Hager

Citations

• 70 Ill. 223

Syllabus

<p>1. Service—by deputy sheriff. Where a summons is served by a deputy sheriff, it is of no importance that the name of the sheriff is written below that of the deputy in the return, instead of above, as is usually done.</p> <p>3. Evidence—parol, to contradict record of a judgment. If the record of a judgment rendered in a sister State shows that the defendant was personally served with process, or recites any other facts showing jurisdiction over his person, parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict the same in a suit upon a transcript of the record properly certified.</p> <p>3. Judgment—of sister State, how far conclusive. A judgment rendered in a sister State is not regarded as foreign, but as domestic, and the only question that can be inquired into in a suit upon the same, is, whether the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and of the persons of the parties.</p> <p>4. Same—evidence as to question of jurisdiction. If it appears, from the record, that the court which pronounced judgment, had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it will be conclusive of the rights of the-parties, and no evidence can be heard to impeach it. But where the record fails to show a proper service, or an appearance, the defendant may show that he was not within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, and in no manner submitted himself to its jurisdiction.</p> <p>5. Sam®—pleading—replication to pleas denying jurisdiction. If the defendant, when sued upon the record of a judgment of a sister State, which shows a personal service, pleads, denying the jurisdiction of the court over his person, the plaintiff should properly reply that the record shows a personal service.</p> <p>6. Error—that works no iwjwy. The exclusion of evidence that could not have changed the result of a trial, affords no ground of reversal.</p>