Hinman v. Rushmore
Illinois Supreme Court
This suit was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, under the attachment act of Illinois, the plaintiff in error being a non-resident.
Read the full summary
This suit was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error, under the attachment act of Illinois, the plaintiff in error being a non-resident. On filing the affidavit and bond required by the statute, in the clerk’s office of the Superior Court of Chicago, a writ of attachment was issued to the sheriff of Cook county; and on the same, day, on the application of the plaintiffs below, another writ of attachment was issued to the sheriff of Livingston county. The former writ was returned without being executed; the other was returned levied on real estate of plaintiff in…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
This is a manifest attempt to pervert what is supposed to be a literal expression of the statute, to purposes never designed by the legislature. For the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the court in Cook county, where the defendant had no property, the party issues a writ of attachment to that county, and also to another county at the same time, where the defendant had property. The first, of course, is returned not served; the last is returned served by the attachment of property of the defendant. It is a rule of law, in order to give the court jurisdiction in an attachment ease, there must…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Chapman v. ReddickSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
- West v. SchneblyIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co. v. Standard Oil Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1924
- Haywood v. McCroryIllinois Supreme Court · 1864
- Fuller v. LangfordIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.