Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance v. Love

It is my view of this matter that because of a waiver or of an estoppel by reason of the conduct of plaintiff’s counsel there was an abuse of discretion in the ■court’s refusal to open the default.

The evidence leads inescapably to the conclusion that counsel for the defendant honestly and in good faith believed that counsel for the plaintiff had orally waived the default and consented to the late filing of defensive pleadings.1 When, as here, the ■defensive pleadings are tendered and filed 36 days after service and defendant may open the default as a matter of right by doing nothing more than…