{
  "id": 2904101,
  "name": "James Hannan and Amos W. Martin, Executors, Appellees, v. Joseph Biggio, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hannan v. Biggio",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,905",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 460"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2260,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.735886142007641e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4084881010437288
    },
    "sha256": "a0660e43681832f7ca44ff46538c19f071bb342c7e370845400230cdc60ea7e8",
    "simhash": "1:17f58604d34ef41c",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Hannan and Amos W. Martin, Executors, Appellees, v. Joseph Biggio, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Judgment, \u00a7 65 \u2014grounds for vacating. A judgment entered by confession on a note should be vacated if it appears that there was no consideration for the note in question.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John T. Byrnes, for appellant.",
      "Edward H. S. Martin, for appellees"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Hannan and Amos W. Martin, Executors, Appellees, v. Joseph Biggio, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,905.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Judgment, \u00a7 80 \u2014how delay in applying for vacation of may he explained. A proper showing may be made by aflidavits to account for delay in making application to vacate or stay proceedings under a judgment entered by confession.\n2. Judgment, \u00a7 66 \u2014when refusal to vacate constitutes error. Where a note was executed in blank for an amount alleged to be due on a prior note on which the maker was surety, and upon an agreement that the amount due on the prior note at the date of the note sued on should be inserted by plaintiffs\u2019 testate, and the maker relied upon deceased to insert the amount due on the prior note and the evidence tended to show that the pre-exising note had been fully paid, the court erred in refusing to vacate a judgment entered by confession or to stay proceedings with leave to make a defense on the merits.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. David T. Smiley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed November 10, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nOn March 25, 1913, James Hannan and Amos W. Martin, as executors of the estate of James Kenan, deceased, entered a judgment by confession on a note against Joseph Biggio. On April 14, 1913, the first day of the April term of the County Court, the defendant made application to vacate the judgment.\nThe court overruled a motion to vacate the judgment entered by it by confession, and refused to stay the proceedings under the judgment until trial could be had on the merits. From this order in favor of plaintiffs\u2019 testate, defendant appeals.\nJohn T. Byrnes, for appellant.\nEdward H. S. Martin, for appellees\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 487
}