Legal Opinion

Smith v. Heyns

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 6, 1922No. 11,344PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNichols, P. J.

— This appeal is from a ruling of the court against appellant on .his application to set aside a default and judgment in ejectment against him resulting from the negligence of appellant’s attorney in failing to appear for him. No excuse whatever is given for the attorney’s failure to appear. That such failure is not a sufficient reason for setting aside a default and judgment, see Moore v. Horner (1896), 146 Ind. 287, 45 N. E. 341; Heaton v. Peterson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1, 31 N. E. 1133; Harlow v. First Nat. Bank (1902), 30 Ind. App. 160, 173, 65 N. E. 603; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Moore v. HornerIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Heaton v. PetersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892
  3. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance v. RossIndiana Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. RyanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Vapinski v. TosettiIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Moe v. KoeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975
  2. Rastovaski v. BetzIndiana Court of Appeals · 1930
  3. Moe v. KoeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API