TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Haywood v. McCrory

Rufus Haywood, impl'd, &c. v. William E. McCrory

Haywood v. McCrory, 33 Ill. 459 (1864)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1864
Judges
Beckwith
Citations
33 Ill. 459
Headnotes
1. Affidavit for attachment — its requisites. An affidavit for an attachment, stated that the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff in a sum named, for which they had given their note. This was held to be a sufficient description of the nature of the indebtedness. The statute does not require the nature of the indebtedness to be described with any degree of particularity. 2. Jurisdiction—sending attachment to foreign county. Before writs of attachment can be issued to counties, other than that wherein the suit is brought, the suit must be commenced in a proper county; and levy upon property or service must be made upon one or more of the defendants in such county, or no jurisdiction will be acquired. 3. Suit was brought against two defendants, Bane and Haywood, in Coles county. A summons was issued against Bane, and served upon him in that county. Writs of attachment were issued against Haywood, to the counties of Coles, Knox and Cook. No property was attached upon the writ issued to Coles county, nor was there any personal service upon Haywood. Property was levied upon under the writs issued to Knox and Cook counties. Held, the Circuit Court of Coles county acquired jurisdiction by means of the residence of, and service of process upon, Bane, in that county. 4. Notice nr attachment suit—certificate thereof. In suits by attachment, where there is no personal service upon the defendant, in order to sustain a judgment, the record must show affirmatively that the prerequisite of the statute in regard to notice by publication, was complied with. 5. So a certificate of publication of such notice must purport to be made by the printer or publisher of the newspaper in which, the publication was made. 6. The certificate should also state the date of the last paper containing the notice.
Summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. Justin Harlan, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the Circuit Court of Coles county, on the 3d day of May, 1860, by William E. McOrory against Rufus Haywood and William C. Bane. On the day mentioned, the plaintiff filed his affidavit, setting forth “that said William C. Bane and Rufus Haywood are justly indebted to him, the said William E. McOrory, as cashier of the Farmers’ and Traders’ Bank, in the full sum of forty-five hundred dollars, for which they have given him their promissory note, payable in New York, exchange, etc., and signed Bane & Haywood.” The affidavit then states that Haywood is a non-resident, and prays for a writ of attachment against Mm, and for a writ of summons against Bane. An attachment bond was filed, and thereupon, on the same day, a writ of attachment was issued, commanding the sheriff of Coles county to attach the property of Haywood, and further commanding him to summon Bane. Writs of attachment were also sued out against Haywood, to the counties of Knox and Cook. No property was levied upon under the writ which was issued to Coles county, in which the suit was brought, and the writ was returned served upon Bane, and not found, as to Haywood. Property was levied upon under both the'writs' issued to the counties of Knox and Cook. A declaration was filed; and also a notice of the pendency of the suit, &c., to which was appended this certificate of publication: “We hereby certify that the above notice has been published in the Courier, a weekly newspaper, published in Coles county, Ill., six successive weeks, commencing on the 1st day of August, 1860. Oct. 1,1860. W. HARR & SON.” The defendants not appearing, a default was taken against them, and final judgment entered for $4,635, damages, and costs of suit, and an award of a general execution against Bane, and a special execution against Haywood. To reverse that judgment Haywood sued out this writ of error, and he now alleges: First, That the affidavit for the attachment against him was insufficient, in not describing the nature of the indebtedness. Second, That the Circuit Court of Coles county had no jurisdiction over the property attached in the counties of Knox and Cook. Third, That the certificate of publication of notice was insufficient.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Beckwith

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Justice Beckwith delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a suit in personam against William C. Bane, and by attachment against Bufus Haywood, the plaintiff in error. The affidavit upon which process issued, stated that the defendants below were indebted to the plaintiff below, in the sum of forty-five hundred dollars, for which they had given their note; and that the plaintiff in error was not a resident of the State.

It is assigned for error, that the affidavit does not sufficiently describe the nature of the indebtedness.

The statute does not require the nature of the indebtedness to be described with any degree of particularity. The affidavit states the nature and amount of the indebtedness; and that is all that the law requires to be stated in regard to it. A summons to Bane was issued to the sheriff of the county where the suit was brought, and was duly served. Writs of attachment against the plaintiff in error were issued to the counties of Coles, Knox and Cook. No property was attached upon the writ issued to Coles county, and the sheriff returned the same non est inventus as to plaintiff in error. Property was levied upon under the writs issued to Knox and Cook counties. The Circuit Court of Coles county acquired jurisdiction by means of the residence of, and service of process upon Bane, in that county.

So long as he remained in that county he was not liable to be sued in any other county in the State. The present suit could not have been brought in either Knox or Cook county. Proceedings against Haywood in either of them, would have been irregular, without obtaining jurisdiction as to Bane. Before writs of attachment can be issued to counties, other than that wherein the suit is brought, the suit must be commenced in a proper county. Levy upon property or service must be made upon one or more of the defendants in such county, or no jurisdiction will be acquired. Fuller v. Langford, 31 Ill. 248 ; Hinman v. Rushmore, 27 Ill. 509 .

This suit having been properly commenced in Coles county, writs of attachment against the plaintiff in error were properly issued to other counties in the State. The commencement of the suit was the issuing of the summons for Bane, and a proper affidavit and bond having been filed, the writs of attachment against Haywood were properly issued, on the same day that the summons was issued. The record of the judgment fails to show that notice was given of the pendency of the suit as is required by the statute; and the certificate of publication on file is not such an one as the statute requires. It does not purport to be made by the printer or publisher of any newspaper; nor does it state the date of the last paper containing the notice, a copy of which is appended to the certificate. In suits by attachment where there is no personal service upon the defendant, in order to sustain a judgment the record must show affirmatively that the prerequisite of the statute in regard to notice by publication was complied with. As the record in this respect is defective, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1871–1872: 11881–1882: 11885–1886: 11889–1890: 11893–1894: 11899–1900: 11907–1908: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Haywood v. Collins60 Ill. 328 (1871)
  2. Gage v. People ex rel. Raymond58 N.E. 947 (Ill. 1900)
  3. Todd & Smith v. Gates20 W. Va. 464 (1882)
  4. Riely v. Barton32 Ill. App. 524 (1889)
  5. Lord v. Babel16 Ill. App. 434 (1885)
  6. Knebelkamp v. Fogg55 Ill. App. 563 (1894)

Most recent

  1. American Manufacturing Co. v. National Supply Co.19 Ohio C.C. Dec. 433 (Oh. Circ. Ct., Lucas 1907)
  2. Gage v. People ex rel. Raymond58 N.E. 947 (Ill. 1900)
  3. Knebelkamp v. Fogg55 Ill. App. 563 (1894)
  4. Riely v. Barton32 Ill. App. 524 (1889)
  5. Lord v. Babel16 Ill. App. 434 (1885)
  6. Todd & Smith v. Gates20 W. Va. 464 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hinman v. Rushmore, 27 Ill. 509 (1862) 10
Fuller v. Langford, 31 Ill. 248 (1863) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list