compliance with every requirement in Illinois

2020That is precisely what happened to the appellant in this case, where her property was foreclosed without her having notice that foreclosure proceedings had even been brought against her. ¶ 38 “A party defending notice by publication must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Concord Air, Inc. v. Malarz, 2015 IL App (2d) 140639 , ¶ 34; see also West Suburban Bank, 2014 IL App (2d) 131146, ¶ 20 (“strict compliance with the statutes governing the service of process is required before a court will acquire personal jurisdiction over the

2015With these principles in mind, we examine the claimed deficiencies in the service in the Harris foreclosure and the extent to which Chicago Title should have recognized the deficiencies before acquiring the property. - 11 - 2015 IL App (2d) 140639 ¶ 35 Plaintiff argues that, in support of its motion to quash service, it presented evidence that Harris did not effectuate service as required by statute.

2014Determining that the delay rendered the ensuing publication insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the supreme court commented: “A party claiming the benefit of a decree upon constructive service must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute, and nothing else will invest the court with jurisdiction or give validity to a decree when the same is called in question in a direct proceeding.” Id. at 383 . -5- ¶ 20 The Newman court quoted at length from another decision of the supreme court from 1866, Campbell v. McCahan, 41 Ill. 45 (1866).

2014Determining that the delay rendered the ensuing publication insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the supreme court commented: "A party claiming the benefit of a decree upon constructive service must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute, and nothing else will invest the court with jurisdiction or give validity to a decree when the same is called in question in a direct proceeding." Id. at 383 . -7- No. 1-13-0112 ¶ 20 The Newman court quoted at length from another decision of the supreme court from 1866, Campbell v. McCahan, 41 Ill. 45 (1866

1937(People v. Abraham, 295 Ill. 582 ; Boyland v. Boyland, 18 id. 551.) The affidavit upon which service by publication is had under the provisions of the Chancery act is jurisdictional and there must be a strict compliance with the statute.

1933(People v. Abraham, 295 Ill. 582 ; Boyland v. Boyland, 18 id. 551.) The affidavit upon which service by publication is had under ‘the provisions of the Chancery act is jurisdictional and there must be a strict compliance with the statute.

1929(Const, of 1818, art. 2, sec. 17; Const, of 1848, art. 3 , sec. 20.) We said in People v. Bowman, 247 Ill. 276 , that the journals of the senate and house of representatives must show on their face a compliance with every requirement of the constitution, from the introduction of a bill until its final passage, or it will not become a law.

1912In People v. Bowman, 247 Ill. 276 , the court reiterated the statement that the journals of the senate and house must show on their face a compliance with every requirement of the constitution, from the introduction of a bill until its final passage, or it will not become a law, and that the silence of the journals as to anything required to be shown is evidence of its non-existence.

1988The court found that the service should be quashed and said: “The return of an officer making service of a summons for a defendant by copy delivered to another person must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute authorizing such service or the court will not obtain jurisdiction of the person.” ( 1 Ill.

1988App. 2d at 27 , 116 N.E.2d at 90 .) In State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 294, 309 , 497 N.E.2d 1156 , the court stated that Illinois authority firmly established that in the case of substituted service, the return must show strict compliance with every requirement of section 2 — 203(a).

1988App. 2d at 27 , 116 N.E.2d at 90 .) In State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 294, 309 , 497 N.E.2d 1156 , the court stated that Illinois authority firmly established that in the case of substituted service, the return must show strict compliance with every requirement of section 2 — 203(a).

1988App. 2d at 27 , 116 N.E.2d at 90 .) In State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill (1986), 113 Ill. 2d 294, 309 , 497 N.E.2d 1156 , the court stated that Illinois authority firmly established that in the case of substituted service, the return must show strict compliance with every requirement of section 2 — 203(a).

1937(Anderson v. Anderson, 229 Ill. 538 .) ” In Illinois Valley Bank v. Newman, 351 Ill. 380 , it was held at p. 383: “A party claiming the benefit of a decree upon constructive service must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute, and nothing else will invest the court with jurisdiction or give validity to a decree when the same is called in question in a direct proceeding.

1937App. 572 .” In passing upon this question in Correll v. Greider, 245 Ill. 378 , the court said at p. 380: “The rule is too well established to require the citation of authorities, that a party claiming the benefits of a decree upon constructive service must show a strict compliance with every requirement of the statute.

1937Discussing this subject in Spalding v. Fahrney, 108 Ill.

1930(Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 106 ; Townsend v. Griggs, 2 Scam. 365 ; Montgomery v. Brown, 2 Gilm. 581 ; Boyland v. Boyland, 18 Ill. 551 ; Tompkins v. Wiltberger, 56 id. 385; Mack v. Brown, 73 id. 295.) These cases and others firmly establish the rule that the return of an officer showing substituted service of a summons under section 11 of the - Chancery act instead of personal service must affirmatively state the leaving of a copy of the summons at the usual place of abode of the defendant with some person of the family (naming him) of the age of ten years or upwards, and informing such person

1930(Piggott v. Snell, 59 Ill. 106 ; Townsend v. Griggs, 2 Scam. 365 ; Montgomery v. Brown, 2 Gilm. 581 ; Boyland v. Boyland, 18 Ill. 551 ; Tompkins v. Wiltberger, 56 id. 385; Mack v. Brown, 73 id. 295.) These cases and others firmly establish the rule that the return of an officer showing substituted service of a summons under section 11 of the - Chancery act instead of personal service must affirmatively state the leaving of a copy of the summons at the usual place of abode of the defendant with some person of the family (naming him) of the age of ten years or upwards, and informing such person

1929This principle was announced in Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill. 297 .