Pirie v. Carroll

6 Citing cases

  1. Gustafson v. Lindquist

    40 Ill. App. 3d 152 (Ill. App. Ct. 1976)   Cited 10 times
    In Gustafson v. Lindquist, 40 Ill. App.3d 152, 154, 351 N.E.2d 280, 282 (1st Dist. 1976), the defendant issued three successive promissory notes to the plaintiff, each one replacing the other.

    Thus, as to the second note, we must determine whether there was adequate consideration for the difference of $411.77 which defendant claims was a gift and therefore without consideration. Plaintiff contends on appeal that this amount was in consideration of his forbearance from enforcing collection of the first note. While forbearance may provide consideration for a negotiable instrument ( Pirie v. Carroll, 28 Ill. App.2d 181, 171 N.E.2d 99), we note that the only evidence offered by plaintiff at trial on this point was his testimony that the second note "repaid" the first. We do not think that it can be implied from this bare assertion that forbearance was the basis for the new note.

  2. Windsor Development Co. v. Segal

    293 N.E.2d 719 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973)   Cited 1 times

    • 2, 3 A motion to open up a judgment by confession is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its order thereon will be reversed only for an abuse of such discretion. ( First National Bank of Elgin v. Husted, 57 Ill. App.2d 227, 205 N.E.2d 780; Pirie v. Carroll, 28 Ill. App.2d 181, 171 N.E.2d 99.) We find no abuse of discretion in the refusal of the trial court to open the judgment on appellant's First Amended Motion to Open and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

  3. Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Johnson Tractor Sales

    267 N.E.2d 358 (Ill. App. Ct. 1971)   Cited 5 times

    • 1 The trial court has wide discretion in granting a motion to set aside a judgment by confession. Pirie v. Carroll, 28 Ill. App.2d 181 (1960). The defendant filed a petition with a proposed answer.

  4. Ozite Corp. v. F.C. Clothier Sons Corp.

    264 N.E.2d 833 (Ill. App. Ct. 1970)   Cited 8 times
    Giving notice of rejection of carpet padding and subsequently selling part of said padding amounted to acceptance

    " The facts of this case are also similar to the case of Pirie v. Carroll (1960), 28 Ill. App.2d 181, where the court stated at pages 185 and 186: "In the case the defendant did not either return or offer to return the goods.

  5. 1616 Building Corp. v. Rubinson

    212 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    We do not believe that there was an abuse of that discretion by the trial court. See also Pirie v. Carroll, 28 Ill. App.2d 181, 188, 171 N.E.2d 99. [12, 13] On the authority of Supreme Court Rule 23 (as amended, effective January 1, 1964), the trial court may stay proceedings on a confessed judgment and permit the filing of a counterclaim even though a defense on the merits is not presented. Under the circumstances of the instant case, we find no error in the court's refusal to take jurisdiction of defendant's counterclaim, because it embodies in substance and fact the same claims previously submitted to, and pending in, the chancery court.

  6. Olson Rug Co. v. Smarto

    204 N.E.2d 838 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)   Cited 2 times

    This fact is necessarily implied in their amended affidavit in which they alleged that the "carpeting represents an eyesore and a detraction from the general appearance of the household and should be removed from said premises by the plaintiff." [4, 5] A motion to open or vacate a judgment by confession is addressed to the court's sound legal discretion and, unless an abuse of that discretion is shown, the court's action will not be disturbed. Pirie v. Carroll, 28 Ill. App.2d 181, 171 N.E.2d 99, citing with approval 23 ILP, Judgments, Sec 195 and Vella v. Pour, 329 Ill. App. 355, 68 N.E.2d 631. [6] In our opinion the court could have properly found from the record that the defendants did not act diligently when they sought to rescind the contract because of their continued use of the carpeting for so long a time after the alleged defects were discovered, and hence have no meritorious defense on which to base their motion to open up the judgment.