TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chicago & Pacific Railroad v. Kæhler

Chicago and Pacific Railroad Company v. Frederick Kæhler

Chicago & Pac. R.R. v. Kæhler, 79 Ill. 354 (1875)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1875
Judges
Breese
Citations
79 Ill. 354
Syllabus
Service of process on railroad company. The return on a summons was, “ Served the within named railroad company, by reading the same and delivering a copy thereof to I. G. Ogden, Jr., cashier of said railroad company, this 24th day of March, 1875; the president of said company could not be found in my county, this 5th April, 1875: ” Held, that the last date is evidently the date of the return of the writ, and that the return shows that, on the 24tli of March, the day the writ was served, the president could not be found. The service and return of the summons were sufficient, and in strict conformity to the statute.
Summary
Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.

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

Opinion of the Court — Breese

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

Mr. Justice Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:

There is nothing in the point made on this record. The service and return of the summons were sufficient, and in strict conformity to the statute.

The summons was against the Chicago and Pacific Bail-road Company. The return upon it was, “Served the within named railroad company, by reading the same and delivering a copy thereof to I. G. Ogden, Jr., er'Ar.a* of said railroad company, this 24th day of March, 1875; the president of said company could not be found in my county, this 5th April, 1875.” This last d*Ue is evidently the date of the return of the writ. The return shows, on the day the sheriff served the writ upon the cashier of the company, March 24, the president could not be found.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1879–1880: 11883–1884: 118792026peak 1879 · 1

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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