
    Stella M. McDonald, Plaintiff in Error, v. Myrtie A. Watson et al., Defendants in Error.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Equity, § 461
      
      —when defendant in default is precluded from questioning competency or sufficiency of evidence. A defendant in default against whom a decree pro eonfesso is taken is precluded from questioning the competency or sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree where the allegations of the bill are sufficient to sustain the decree.
    2. Mortgages, § 77*—when grantee not personally liable to pay - mortgage. The mere acceptance of a deed subject to an outstanding mortgage specified therein creates no personal liability on the grantee to pay the mortgage.
    3. Equity, § 461*—what is effect of decree pro eonfesso. A decree pro eonfesso concludes the defendants as to matters of fact alleged in the bill but does not conclude them as to any conclusion of law averred therein.
    
      Error to the Circuit Court of Moultrie county; the Hon. George A. Sentel, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by Stella M. McDonald, complainant, against Myrtie A. Watson and others, defendants, to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate. From a deficiency decree against certain defendants and omitting certain other defendants, complainant brings error.
    Ray D. Meeker, for plaintiff in error.
    W. G. Cochran and Whitley & Fitzgerald, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Yola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Equity, § 461 —how decree pro confesso may he attacked as to averments of conclusions of law in hill. As to conclusions of law averred in a bill, a decree pro confesso may be attacked after its rendition by appeal or writ of error on the ground that the allegations in the bill do not sustain it.  