Case ID: ill-app_205/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emma K. Blanks, Appellee, v. W. H. Mills et al., Appellants.
    Gen. No. 22,781.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Judgment, § 82
      
      —how affidavit in support of motion to vacate is construed. An affidavit in support of a motion to vacate a judgment by confession is to be construed strictly against the party presenting such affidavit.
    2. Judgment, § 82*—rWhat are essentials of affidavit in support of motion to vacate. An order to vacate a judgment regularly entered in a cause will not be entered unless upon a statement of the facts relied on in the affidavit for the entry of such order; conclusions of the pleader are not sufficient.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthihl, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 21, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Emma K. Blanks, plaintiff, against W. H. Mills, Dan Macknett and Frank C. Fishback, defendants, upon a na-rr and cognovit on a lease. From an order denying defendants’ motion to vacate the judgment for four hundred and twenty dollars, taken by confession, defendants appeal.
    Meagher, Whitney, Ricks & Sullivan, for appellants; Fred L. Blackington and W. H. Mills, of counsel.
    Ernest W. Clark, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Judgment, § 82 —when affidavit in support of motion to vacate by confession is insufficient. An affidavit filed in support of a motion to vacate a judgment by confession regularly entered stating merely that the lease sued on had been canceled and terminated on a certain date and that the plaintiff had failed and refused to re-rent the premises described in the lease although numerous opportunities for so doing had been offered, held not to unequivocally state facts from which the trial court would be authorized to believe the defendants had a good and meritorious defense to the action.