Grundy, 49 Ill.2d at 502, 275 N.E.2d 374.¶ 26 This court found Grundy distinguishable in Sears Bank & Trust Co. v. Scott, 29 Ill.App.3d 1002, 1010, 331 N.E.2d 607 (1975). Scott involved a sales contract whereby the defendant contracted to purchase an automobile from the plaintiff.
Grundy, 49 Ill.2d at 502, 275 N.E.2d 374.¶ 26 This court found Grundy distinguishable in Sears Bank & Trust Co. v. Scott, 29 Ill.App.3d 1002, 1010, 331 N.E.2d 607 (1975). Scott involved a sales contract whereby the defendant contracted to purchase an automobile from the plaintiff.
In both Grundy and the instant case, in order to establish any indebtedness and the amount thereof, the court of necessity had to go de hors the instrument. Plaintiff relies on Sears Bank Trust Co. v. Scott (1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 1002, 331 N.E.2d 607. In Scott the defendant signed a retail installment sales contract to purchase an automobile.
Rather, each set forth a ceiling amount for which the signatory could become liable, and for which judgment could be confessed. The instrument before us is similar to the retail installment sales contract considered in Sears Bank Trust Co. v. Scott (1975), 29 Ill. App.3d 1002, 331 N.E.2d 607. There the contract for the sale of an automobile listed various credits to the buyer and to the seller with a time price balance of $3,888 to be paid in 36 monthly installments of $108. When defendant defaulted, plaintiff repossessed the automobile and sold it to satisfy the amount due on the contract.
Cox does not argue that the cognovit provision of the note was invalid under Illinois law or that the procedures used by the Illinois court under the confession of judgment terms of the promissory note in question and the Illinois Civil Practices Act were not strictly followed. Under Illinois law the act of appearance by an attorney pursuant to the warrant of attorney in cognovit notes confers personal jurisdiction over the defendant on an Illinois court. Sears Bank Trust Co. v. Scott, (1975) 29 Ill. App.3d 1001, 331 N.E.2d 607. The court having jurisdiction, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction would result at most in the judgment's being voidable and not void. Id.; Egley v. T.B. Bennett Co., supra. Lack of service of process upon a defendant in an action on a cognovit note does not, therefore, deprive an Illinois court of personal jurisdiction to render a judgment in a case such as this. See, id.; Rodenbeck v. Crews State Bank Trust Co., (1928) 97 Ind. App. 21, 163 N.E. 616, trans. denied (1933); Barber Co. v. Hughes, supra. Any questions dealing with the authority of an attorney to confess judgment for Cox would involve questions regarding the warrant of attorney and could render the judgment voidable, but not void. Sears Bank Trust Co. v. Scott, supra. Because the Illinois judgment in this case could be merely voidable and not void, it is not subject to collateral attack either in Illinois or in Indiana.