delivered the opinion of the court.
Hale v. Ferguson, 186 Ill. App. 156 (1914)
May 4, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 18,752
186 Ill. App. 156
John G. Hale, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edward A. Ferguson et al., Defendants in Error.
Gen. No. 18,752.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodobe Bbentano, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the March term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 4, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Bill by John Q-. Hale against Edward A. Ferguson, Union Central Life Insurance Company and Charles W. Sampson to enjoin the collection of a judgment entered against complainant in favor of Ferguson on a promissory note, and also to enjoin the collection of a judgment recovered on an appeal bond. A demurrer was filed setting up that the face of the bill showed that the matter was res adjudicaba and that there had been laches in prosecuting it. The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed. Later the complainant moved to vacate the order of dismissal and to make Lelia H. Hale a party complainant and the motion was denied. Thereupon complainant sued out a writ of error.
Previous to the filing of the bill, Ferguson recovered a judgment against the complainant on a promissory note before a justice of the peace, and on appeal to the Circuit Court a judgment was entered for the same amount, and from the judgment Hale appealed to the Appellate Court and the judgment was affirmed. After this affirmance, Ferguson failing to obtain satisfaction of his judgment brought suit against the surety on the appeal bond (one Lelia H. Hale) and obtained a judgment. On appeal from the judgment to the Appellate Court the judgment was affirmed. See 162 Ill. App. 523.
*157Edward J. Kelley, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
Abstract of the Decision.
Judgment, § 311 * —when dismissal of Mil to enjoin enforcement of judgment proper. On bill to enjoin the collection of a judgment recovered against complainant on a promissory note on the ground that there was fraud in the execution of the note and a partial failure of consideration, held that a decree dismissing the bill was proper, that the matter set up in the bill would have been, available in law as well as in equity, and that the matter was res adjudicata in the Superior Court and in the Appellate Court.