good and meritorious defense in Illinois

1979App. 3d 573, 578 , 305 N.E.2d 25, 28 ) and therefore insufficient to show a good and meritorious defense.

1974In Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Sanders (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 573, 577 , the court wrote: “The decisions are numerous holding that the grounds and facts upon which the merits of the defense arise must be stated so that the court will be able to judge the merits of such defense. [Citations.]” In that case, the petitioner’s allegation that she “was not responsible for the injuries” was held to be nonfactual, and a conclusion of the pleader which was an insufficient showing of a good and meritorious defense under section 72.

1979More recently, in Chase v. Cunningham (1978), 64 Ill.

1978App. 2d 102 , 167 N.E.2d 799 , the courts generally required that motions made under section 50(5) establish a good and meritorious defense supported by affidavit.

1973The petition states “defendant has a meritorious and legal defense in that she was not responsible for the injuries, if any, sustained by plaintiff’s subrogor” and in her affidavit she states “I had a legal and meritorious defense to the above suit in that I was not responsible for injuries, if any, sustained by the plaintiffs subrogor.” In Keel v. Kostka, 106 Ill.App.2d 172 , 245 N.E.2d 607 , relied upon by defendant, it was held that there was a sufficient showing of a good defense.

1973The petition states “defendant has a meritorious and legal defense in that she was not responsible for the injuries, if any, sustained by plaintiff’s subrogor” and in her affidavit she states “I had a legal and meritorious defense to the above suit in that I was not responsible for injuries, if any, sustained by the plaintiffs subrogor.” In Keel v. Kostka, 106 Ill.App.2d 172 , 245 N.E.2d 607 , relied upon by defendant, it was held that there was a sufficient showing of a good defense.

1928A few of the many authorities that may be cited to this point are Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161 ; How v. Mortell, 28 Ill. 478 ; Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 Ill. 284 ; Finlen v. Skelly, 310 Ill. 170 ; Gottschall for use of Delfosse v. Kimbark State Bank, 220 Ill.

1928A few of the many authorities that may be cited to this point are Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161 ; How v. Mortell, 28 Ill. 478 ; Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 Ill. 284 ; Finlen v. Skelly, 310 Ill. 170 ; Gottschall for use of Delfosse v. Kimbark State Bank, 220 Ill.

1928A few of the many authorities that may be cited to this point are Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161 ; How v. Mortell, 28 Ill. 478 ; Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 Ill. 284 ; Finlen v. Skelly, 310 Ill. 170 ; Gottschall for use of Delfosse v. Kimbark State Bank, 220 Ill.

1928A few of the many authorities that may be cited to this point are Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161 ; How v. Mortell, 28 Ill. 478 ; Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 Ill. 284 ; Finlen v. Skelly, 310 Ill. 170 ; Gottschall for use of Delfosse v. Kimbark State Bank, 220 Ill.

1928(Schultz v. Meiselbar, 144 Ill. 26 .) The seventh paragraph alleges that the defendant has a good and meritorious defense.

1928A few of the many authorities that may be cited to this point are Owens v. Ranstead, 22 Ill. 161 ; How v. Mortell, 28 Ill. 478 ; Bardonski v. Bardonski, 144 Ill. 284 ; Finlen v. Skelly, 310 Ill. 170 ; Gottschall for use of Delfosse v. Kimbark State Bank, 220 Ill.

1896Northwestern Brewing Company v. Marion, 44 Ill.

1883As said by the Supreme Court, in Mason v. McNamara, 57 Ill. 274 , ‘As we understand the long and xvell-settled practice in this State, it has always been liberal in setting aside defaults at the term at which they were entered, where it appears that justice will be promoted thereby.

1881In Walker v. Kretsinger, 48 Ill. 502 , the court say : “ The doctrine is well settled in equity, that when a party has a complete and adequate remedy at law, and tails from any cause to rely upon it in that forum, he will not be permitted to assert it in equity unless he was prevented by accident, or such circumstances as he was unable to control.