Hilderbrandt v. Robbecke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
In this case judgment, by default, was regularly entered against the defendant in the district court for Washington county. Defendant made a motion to set aside the judgment] and for leave to answer, which, was based upon an answer] duly verified by him alleging a good defense, and his affidavit] excusing his default, which were served upon the plaintiff’s] attorney.
Read the full summary
In this case judgment, by default, was regularly entered against the defendant in the district court for Washington county. Defendant made a motion to set aside the judgment] and for leave to answer, which, was based upon an answer] duly verified by him alleging a good defense, and his affidavit] excusing his default, which were served upon the plaintiff’s] attorney. The affidavit stated, in substance, that the summons in the action was served upon the defendant on the llt-fal of December, in Afton, Washington county; that within twol days thereafter he went to St. Paul and employed an…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
McMillan, J.
The complaint in this action is not very accurately drawn, but upon a motion after judgment, at least, is sufficient. The judgment by default was regularly entered against defendant ; if set aside or opened it must be for cause shown by defendant.
The affidavit of the defendant used in the court below upon the motion to open and set aside the judgment and for leave to answer, is wholly uncontradicted. A recital of the facts stated therein is unnecessary here. It suffices to say, we think they show clearly that the defendant exercised all the diligence which could…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Welch v. ChallenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Stretch v. Montezuma Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1906
- Spicer v. Carefree Vacations, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985