dissenting:
I agree with the majority that personal jurisdiction over an out-of-State resident depends upon strict compliance with section 2 — 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wells v. Braxton (1967), 82 Ill. App. 2d 354, 227 N.E.2d 137), and that section 2 — 208 requires that an affidavit of the server be filed stating the time, manner and place of service (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 2—208). However, I disagree with the majority that the “Affidavit of Service” filed herein (see appendix C) did not constitute a valid affidavit within the meaning of section 2 — 208 because it was not signed.
An affidavit is simply a declaration, on oath, in writing sworn to before some person who has authority under the law to administer oaths. (People v. Smith (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 377, 380, 317 N.E.2d 300, 302.) Neither section 2 — 208 nor any other section of the Code of Civil Procedure nor any supreme court rule requires a signature if the identity of the affiant is otherwise sufficiently shown, as where he is named in the body of the affidavit. The majority points to no statute or case law requiring such a signature where the identity of the affiant is otherwise clear and the affidavit is properly sworn and notarized.
The majority states that the notarized signature is essential because it gives the court assurance of the trustworthiness of the statement that has been made within the affidavit. I disagree. It is the oath which gives the court assurance of the trustworthiness of the declaration contained in the affidavit. The signature only serves to identify the affiant and. formalize the declaration before the notary. However, the affiant can be identified in the body of the affidavit and the declaration can be made to the notary in ways other than a signature. For example, an affiant may appear before a notary with an affidavit similar to the one in the case at bar and present the affidavit to the notary who, after confirming the identity of the affiant and that the declaration contained in the affidavit is true, notarizes the instrument. In such a case it is obvious that the affiant has made an affidavit and his signature adds nothing and is unnecessary.
In the instant affidavit, the name of the affiant is handwritten in the body of the affidavit by the affiant himself. Furthermore, the jurat recites that the declaration contained in the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before the notary, a person authorized to administer oaths. The affidavit in question thus qualifies as a declaration, on oath, in writing sworn to before a person who has authority to administer oaths. Furthermore, the affidavit in question establishes that for which it is intended, i.e., that T. Flora personally served the defendant with process at a particular location in the afternoon or evening of October 19,1989.
Indeed, what more is required than that an individual appear before a notary public authorized to administer oaths and present a written declaration that he, the affiant, personally served the defendant with summons and a copy of the petition on a certain time and date at a certain location? That is precisely what is required by section 2 — 208 and is precisely what occurred in the case at bar. A signature at the bottom of the instrument, especially where the affiant’s name is handwritten in the body of the affidavit by the affiant, would have added nothing more to the affidavit or the procedure and is not required by section 2 — 208.
Thus, while I recognize that service and return on an out-of-State defendant must comply fully with the requirements of section 2 — 208, I believe that, in the instant case, those requirements were fully complied with.
[[Image here]]
[[Image here]]
[[Image here]]