Cedvilas v. Sinkus

Appellate Court of Illinois

Cedvilas v. Sinkus

209 Ill. App. 110, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 928

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 17, 1917

DocketGen. No. 23,355

StatusPublished

This text of 209 Ill. App. 110 (Cedvilas v. Sinkus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cedvilas v. Sinkus, 209 Ill. App. 110, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 928 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion. of the court.

This writ of error is undefended.

On December 19, 1916, a judgment hy default for $200 was entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiffs. Ten days thereafter defendant moved to vacate the judgment. This motion was allowed and the judgment vacated and the cause reinstated. At the same time, and as a part of the same order, the amended statement of claim was stricken from the files and plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended statement of claim within 5 days and defendant was ordered to file an affidavit of merits thereto within 5 days thereafter. Plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim within the time ruled, but defendant failed to file any affidavit of merits or to interpose any other defense. The judgment sought to be reversed by this writ of error was entered February 5, 1917, by default for want of an affidavit of merits or other defense being interposed by defendant to the amended statement of claim. These facts are not in dispute, but defendant insists that no judgment by default could be taken while his former affidavit of defense remained in the record, and relies in this contention upon Hine Bros. Co. v. Adams, 139 Ill. App. 92, which case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

The original judgment was vacated on defendant’s own motion. It was upon terms, one of which was that defendant should file an affidavit of merits within the time fixed by the order granting his motion. The terms upon which the original judgment was set aside disposed of all the previous pleadings. The cause started afresh, as it were, with a new statement of claim, to which defendant was ruled to answer by filing within 5 days after this latter statement of claim was filed an affidavit of merits. Failing to comply with this condition, defendant was in default and judgment was rightfully entered against him. Furthermore, we hold that the statement of claim stated a cause of action and that the affidavit of defense originally filed by defendant did not state a meritorious defense to such action. Therefore the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Presiding Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion. of the court.

This writ of error is undefended.

On December 19, 1916, a judgment hy default for $200 was entered against defendant and in favor of plaintiffs. Ten days thereafter defendant moved to vacate the judgment. This motion was allowed and the judgment vacated and the cause reinstated. At the same time, and as a part of the same order, the amended statement of claim was stricken from the files and plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended statement of claim within 5 days and defendant was ordered to file an affidavit of merits thereto within 5 days thereafter. Plaintiffs filed an amended statement of claim within the time ruled, but defendant failed to file any affidavit of merits or to interpose any other defense. The judgment sought to be reversed by this writ of error was entered February 5, 1917, by default for want of an affidavit of merits or other defense being interposed by defendant to the amended statement of claim. These facts are not in dispute, but defendant insists that no judgment by default could be taken while his former affidavit of defense remained in the record, and relies in this contention upon Hine Bros. Co. v. Adams, 139 Ill. App. 92, which case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

The original judgment was vacated on defendant’s own motion. It was upon terms, one of which was that defendant should file an affidavit of merits within the time fixed by the order granting his motion. The terms upon which the original judgment was set aside disposed of all the previous pleadings. The cause started afresh, as it were, with a new statement of claim, to which defendant was ruled to answer by filing within 5 days after this latter statement of claim was filed an affidavit of merits. Failing to comply with this condition, defendant was in default and judgment was rightfully entered against him. Furthermore, we hold that the statement of claim stated a cause of action and that the affidavit of defense originally filed by defendant did not state a meritorious defense to such action. Therefore the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 Ill. App. 110, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cedvilas-v-sinkus-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack