Till v. Kara

Decision Date28 September 1959
Docket NumberGen. No. 11283,A-W
Citation161 N.E.2d 363,22 Ill.App.2d 502
PartiesAnton TILL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emily KARA, individually and doing business as Hide-ay Tavern, and Jerry C. Kara, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Stickgold & Mullin, Chicago, for plaintiff.

C. Russell Allen, Woodstock, Snyder, Clarke, Dalziel, Holmquist & Johnson, Waukegan, for defendants.

SOLFISBURG, Justice.

On November 26, 1957, the plaintiff filed his complaint under Section 14 of Article VI of the Liquor Control Act (Ill.Rev.Stats.1957, Chap. 43, par. 135) against Emily Kara, Jerry C. Kara and Carl Cavitt, to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of an automobile collision. Cavitt was alleged to have become intoxicated from liquor obtained in a tavern operated by Emily Kara, located on premises owned by Emily Kara and Jerry C. Kara. All the defendants were served with process on December 1, 1957. The defendant Cavitt failed to enter his appearance or to plead to the complaint and a default order and default judgment were entered against him; no question has been raised concerning the judgment by default against defendant Cavitt.

Two attorneys employed by defendants Emily Kara and Jerry C. Kara entered their appearance as attorneys for these defendants on January 7, 1958, secured an extension of time within which to plead to the plaintiff's complaint, and in due course filed an answer to the complaint on January 27, 1958, denying the material allegations of the complaint. On March 17, 1958, upon motion of the plaintiff and after proper notice, the court ordered the cause placed on the June A.D. 1958 trial call. At the same time the plaintiff directed certain interrogatories in writing to the attorneys for the defendants Kara. On April 9, 1958, or approximately one month after the case was placed upon the June 1958 trial call, the two attorneys representing the defendants Kara served notices in person upon counsel for plaintiff and by registered mail, return receipt requested, upon Emily Kara and Jerry C. Kara that on April 14, 1958, at the opening of court in the forenoon they would appear before the presiding judge of the Circuit Court of Lake County and 'then and there move for leave to file their withdrawal of appearance as attorneys of record' in this cause 'for your failure to cooperate with or otherwise assist the undersigned [attorneys] in the preparation of your defense, at which time and place you may appear if you see fit so to do. You and each of you are further notified that you should file a special appearance or otherwise furnish the Clerk of the Court with a Lake County, Illinois, address to which notices may be served upon you. (Signatures).'

Thereafter, on April 14, 1958, the two attorneys by leave of court filed their withdrawal of appearance in accordance with the notices previously served. The defendants Emily Kara and Jerry C. Kara filed no appearance nor did any attorney on their behalf. On June 17, 1958, when the case was called for trial on the regular call of the June 1958 jury cases, neither the defendants nor anyone on their behalf appeared, whereupon the plaintiff waived his jury demand, and the cause was submitted to the court for trial without a jury. The court entered a judgment order finding the defendants and each of them guilty, assessed plaintiff's damages in the sum of $15,000, and ordered that plaintiff have judgment and execution for that sum plus costs. Execution was issued on August 15, 1958, and served upon the defendants on August 18, 1958. On August 21, 1958, the defendants Kara, by one of the attorneys who had previously represented them in the case, served notice on plaintiff's counsel that they would appear in court in August 25, 1958, and present a petition to vacate the judgment rendered on June 17, 1958, and for leave to appear and defend the action. The court granted defendants leave to file additional affidavits and supporting suggestions and plaintiff leave to file counteraffidavits, briefs, and an answer to suggestions, after consideration of which the court entered an order on October 17, 1958, denying the petition to vacate the judgment and confirming the judgment entered on June 17, 1958. The defendants subsequently, by leave of court, moved the trial court for a rehearing on their prior petition to vacate the judgment, and this latter motion was denied on December 1, 1958. This appeal by defendants-appellants followed.

The sole question raised by defendants-appellants before this court is whether by their affidavits they showed not only a meritorious defense but also due diligence in preserving their rights to entitle them to relief from the default judgment.

The affidavit of Gerald B. Mullin, attorney for the defendants, filed in support of their motion to set aside the default judgment, recited that about December 15, 1957, Jerry C. Kara, defendant, consulted him with reference to this case and advised him he had been served with a summons; that Kara was uncertain whether a dram shop insurance policy was in force to indemnify him from liability; that affiant and an additional attorney were retained by Kara and filed an answer to the complaint; that in March, 1958, Jerry C. Kara advised affiant that he had spoken with his insurance broker, that there was an insurance company who would employ counsel to defend this action and that affiant's services were no longer required; that affiant and the additional attorney thereupon withdrew their appearance for the defendants; that on August 18, 1958, the defendant Kara again consulted affiant in regard to this case and advised him that execution had been served upon him; that after two days of investigation of the facts, a notice of motion to vacate the judgment was served by affiant.

An affidavit by the defendant, Jerry C. Kara, stated that on October 24, 1957, the date on which the defendant Cavitt was alleged in the complaint to have purchased liquor from the Kara tavern, affiant and his wife were the owners of a tavern known as the Hide-A-Way Tavern but that no person could have procured alcoholic beverages at said tavern on that date because of the fact the tavern was not open for business; that accordingly the defendants have a good defense to the merits of the plaintiff's complaint. The affidavit of Jerry C. Kara further stated that he was advised by his insurance broker that there was an insurance policy indemnifying him for violation of the dram shop laws in force and effect; that he was further advised that such insurance company would undertake the defense of this case and therefore he advised his lawyer to withdraw from the case; that the first notice he received of the judgment was on August 18, 1958, when a writ of execution was served on him at which time he consulted Gerald B. Mullin, his attorney, who immediately took steps to open the judgment. The affidavit of the defendant Emily O. Kara, wife of Jerry C. Kara, repeated the same statements found in the affidavit of her husband. The record also contains an affidavit by the defendant, Carl Cavitt, to the effect that he purchased no alcoholic beverage of any kind at the Hide-A-Way Tavern on October 24, 1957, the date on which he was alleged in the complaint to have purchased alcoholic liquor from the tavern of the defendants Kara.

The petition of defendants-appellants in this case was filed pursuant to Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stats.1957, Chap. 110, Par. 72), which abolishes the writ of error coram nobis, coram vobis, writs of audita querela, bills of review and bills in the nature of bills of review, and provides that 'all relief heretofore obtainable and the grounds for said relief heretofore available, either at law or in equity, whether by any of the foregoing remedies or otherwise, shall be available in every case by proceedings' under said section.

The defendants in their briefs and arguments state that their petition is addressed to the court's sound discretion and ask the court to exercise its discretion 'to prevent injury and to further justice'. It is defendants' position that their neglect was excusable and that if there was any negligence or fault here it was the negligence of the insurance broker which should not be attributed to the defendants.

The scope and purpose of the statutory petition substituted for the common-law writ of error coram nobis was outlined by the Supreme Court in Ellman v. De Ruiter, 412 Ill. 285, 291, 106 N.E.2d 350, 353, where the court stated:

'While it has been held that the essentials of procedure remain the same despite the abolition of the writ, Mitchell v. King, 187 Ill. 452, 55 N.E. 637, 58 N.E. 310, the use of the motion has not been restricted to the narrow confines of its common-law antecedent. Rather, courts have encouraged the development of the statutory equivalent and permitted its use in new situations wherever such was consonant with the history of the common-law writ. For example, although insanity does not find express mention as a ground for the writ at common law, it has been given recognition in Illinois. Consolidated Coal Co. [of St. Louis] v. Oeltjen, 189 Ill. 85, 59 N.E. 600. Similarly, common-law treatises do not mention fraud or excusable mistake as sustaining a writ of error coram nobis, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Pirman v. A & M Cartage, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 11 Diciembre 1996
    ... ... Maywood Cab Co., 79 Ill.App.2d 295, 224 N.E.2d 572 (1967) (abstract of op.); Wagner v. Sulka, 336 Ill.App. 101, 82 N.E.2d (1948); Till v. Kara, 22 ... Page 881 ... [221 Ill.Dec. 88] Ill.App.2d 502, 161 N.E.2d 363 (1959); Gustafson v. Lundquist, 334 Ill.App. 287, 79 N.E.2d 306 ... ...
  • Smith v. Lehn & Fink Products Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 11 Marzo 1977
    ... ... (See, Maley v. Norville (1968), 95 Ill.App.2d 362, 238 N.E.2d 119; Till v. Kara (1959), 22 Ill.App.2d 502, 161 N.E.2d 363.) The motion to vacate was, therefore, properly denied. Count II, however, sought to estop ... ...
  • Harder v. Advance Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Agosto 1960
    ...within the time stated in the summons, and a petition to set aside or vacate the judgment should be denied. In Till v. Kara et al., 1959, 22 Ill.App.2d 502, 161 N.E.2d 363, the defendant's insurance broker told him there was an insurance policy in effect covering the claimed liability, the ......
  • Bourne v. Seal
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 8 Octubre 1964
    ... ... Till v. Kara, 22 Ill.App.2d 502, 161 N.E.2d 363; Lusk v. Bluhm, 321 Ill.App. 349, 53 N.E.2d 135. The petition alleged both but did so in terms which the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT