Garland v. Britton
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a bill filed to foreclose a mortgage. The process served, was not attested by any seal. At the return term, the bill was taken for confessed, and a decree was entered by Treat, Justice, at November term, 1847. The plaintiff in error now seeks to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court, and assigns for error, the want of a seal to the summons.
1Opinion of the CourtTreat, C. J.
This was a suit in chancery to foreclose a mortgage. " The summons issued and served on the defendant, was not under the seal of the Court. The bill was taken for confessed, and a decree of foreclosure entered. The defendant sued out a writ of error. The statute declares that “ all process issuing from the said Circuit Courts, shall be sealed with the judicial seal which shall be provided for that purpose; but in case there shall not be a judicial seal, the clerk shall affix his private seal until a public one shall be provided.” R. S. ch. 29, §40. This statute is imperative- in its…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Schorsch v. Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1988
- Conkey v. ConderIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Southwestern Settlement & Development Co. v. RandolphCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Costley v. DriverSupreme Court of Alabama · 1871