Clarke v. Hedge & Heaton

10 Iowa 528
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedOctober 6, 1860
StatusPublished

This text of 10 Iowa 528 (Clarke v. Hedge & Heaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clarke v. Hedge & Heaton, 10 Iowa 528 (iowa 1860).

Opinion

Weight, J.

The appellant, plaintiff, complains of the action of the court below, in setting aside a judgment by default, entered against the defendant Heaton. The motion, with the defendant’s answer, and an affidavit of his counsel were filed the same day of the default, but after the same was entered. Without stopping to inquire whether there had been such service on Heaton as entitled plaintiff to his [529]*529default, it is sufficient to say that we see no good reason for interfering with, the discretion of the court, as exercised upon the facts and circumstances presented. While such motions are not granted, as a matter of course, yet the court hearing the same has a large discretion, and we would not interfere unless it was manifest that such discretion had been abused. Nothing of the kind appears in this case. It is simply one of those cases in which we should not have felt at liberty to interfere, if the ruling had been either way. The court in the exercise of its discretion having let the defendant in to defend, the order will not be disturbed. Upon this subject, see Harrison v. Kramer et al., 3 Iowa 543; Messenger v. Marsh, 6 Ib. 491.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harrison v. Kramer
3 Iowa 543 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Iowa 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-hedge-heaton-iowa-1860.