Wayman v. Crozier
Illinois Supreme Court
Wbtt of Eebob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by John P. Crozier against William Wayman, Jane Wayman, his wife, and Isabella Cochrane, to foreclose a mortgage.
Read the full summary
Wbtt of Eebob to the Superior Court of Chicago. This was a suit in chancery instituted in the court below by John P. Crozier against William Wayman, Jane Wayman, his wife, and Isabella Cochrane, to foreclose a mortgage. It appears that one William Wayman and one Thomas Shergold had executed their joint bond to Crozier, conditioned for the payment of $5,000, with ten per cent, interest thereon, and to secure its payment, Wayman and his wife executed to Crozier a mortgage upon real estate. On the 9th of January, 1862, payment not being nade as stipulated in the bond, a judgment at law was…
1Opinion of the Court
Hr. Chief Justice Walker
delivered the opinion of the Court:
It is urged that the summons in this case was served on Jane Wayman, by her husband, as deputy sheriff, and that the service was, for that reason, void. The suit was against William Wayman, Jane Wayman and Isabella Cochrane. The return shows that the two latter were served by “William Wayman,” as deputy sheriff. If this were so, it would be only matter of abatement, or motion to quash the return. The alleged improper service was not noticed in the court below, and the objection comes too late when made in this court for the first time.
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bradley v. LightcapIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- St. Louis & Sandoval Coal & Mining Co. v. EdwardsIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- Beazley's Adm'r v. Sims' Adm'rSupreme Court of Virginia · 1886
- Bradley v. LightcapIllinois Supreme Court · 1903