
    R. E. Garrett and A. G. Johnson, Plaintiffs in Error, v. C. B. Spang et al., Defendants in Error.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Vermilion county; the Hon. Augustus A. Pabtlow, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 11, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill by C. B. Spang, complainant, against Asa W. Sawin, Anna M. Sawin, R. E. Garrett and A. G. Johnson, defendants, to foreclose a mortgage. The bill averred that, subsequently to the execution of the mortgage by defendants Sawin, the property mortgaged was conveyed to defendants Garrett and Johnson, who assumed the mortgage debt. A decree was entered for plaintiff for $1,763.70, defendants Garrett and Johnson having failed to appear or answer. After a sale of the property a judgment for a deficiency of $411.32 was decreed against all the defendants. Defendants Garrett and Johnson, without filing answers, moved to set aside and vacate the motion and judgment, which motion was denied. To reverse the order denying such motion, Garrett and Johnson prosecute this writ of error.
    Isaac A. Love, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Equity, § 538
      
      —when discretion of court in passing on motion to set aside decree by default not disturbed. A motion to set aside a decree entered by default is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, which will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears to have been wrongfully and oppressively exercised.
    2. Equity, § 538*—when motion to set aside default decree properly overruled. Where an answer does not accompany a motion to set aside a decree entered by default, it is not an abuse of discretion to overrule the motion.
    3. Equity, § 538*—when not abuse of discretion to overrule motion to set aside default decree. Where no attempt is made for nearly 2 years to have the court pass upon a motion made to set aside a decree entered by default which is not accompanied by" an answer, it is not an abuse of discretion to overrule such motion.
    Rearick & Meeks, W. T. Henderson and Acton & Acton, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Eldredge

delivered the opinion of the court.  