Crandall v. Piette

1 Or. 226
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided June 15, 1856·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Williams, C. J.

Defendant allowed judgment to go against him by default before the justice, and could not, for that reason, afterwards appear* and defend as a matter of right; his application, therefore, for leave to answer, was addressed to the discretion of the District Court. That court, in the exercise of such discretion, might allow, or refuse altogether the application, or might grant it, upon such terms as in its judgment were just under the circumstances. We cannot, [227] as a general practice, overrule the exercise of discretion by the District Court, and if we could, there is no very apparent error in refusing to remove a legal bar to plaintiff’s defence, simply to enable him to interpose a legal bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Crandall v. Piette, 1 Or. 226 (Or. 1856).

1 Or. 226 (Crandall v. Piette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

King v. Mitchell
216 P.2d 269 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
White v. Northwest Stage Co.
5 Or. 99 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1873)