#### Jacob Stein, Impleaded, etc., v. Charles Stein.

Judgment and Decree—Successful Defense of Co-defendant—No Service on Plaintiff in Error—Practice.

Judgment reversed, it appearing, first, that the co-defendant of plaintiff in error made a successful defense upon a ground not personal to himself, and second, that there was no service upon the plaintiff in error and that the judgment against him was by default.

[Opinion filed March 4, 1892.]

In error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Biciiard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding.

Mr. A. B. Jerks, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Brads, Mayer & Steir, for defendant in error.

Gary, J.

This case is a companion to Stein v. Goldsmith, 44 Ill. App. 108, and was brought here doubtless, with the hope that it might exercise some collateral influence upon that.

*108The parties here are the son complaining that the father has taken by default, a wrong judgment against him, and the father admitting it, and on the face of the record the judgment does appear to be wrong. How, in fact, the judgment was taken, appears in the opinion in the other case, but is not shown by this record. It does appear however, by this record, that Goldsmith was co-defendant of the plaintiff in error, in an action of assumpsit, and withdrew his plea of the general issue, and so his successful defense was made, not upon any matter personal to himself, as infancy or bankruptcy. And the record shows no service of process upon plaintiff in error. Miller v. Glass, 14 Ill. App. 177. For either of these reasons this judgment is wrong and is reversed, but there is nothing to ground further proceedings upon, and so the case is not remanded. Ditch v. Edwards, 1 Scam. 127.

Judgment reversed.