delivered the opinion of the court.
*4613. Judgment, § 65 * —grounds 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.
Hannan v. Biggio, 189 Ill. App. 460 (1914)
Nov. 10, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,905
189 Ill. App. 460
James Hannan and Amos W. Martin, Executors, Appellees, v. Joseph Biggio, Appellant.
Gen. No. 19,905.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Judgment, § 80 * —how 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.
2. Judgment, § 66 * —when 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 *461agreement that the amount due on the prior note at the date of the note sued on should be inserted by plaintiffs’ 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.
*460Appeal 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.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed November 10, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
On 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.
The 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’ testate, defendant appeals.
John T. Byrnes, for appellant.
Edward H. S. Martin, for appellees