Hegaas v. Hegaas

Montana Supreme Court

Hegaas v. Hegaas

72 P. 656, 28 Mont. 266, 1903 Mont. LEXIS 89

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1903

DocketNo. 1,587

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 P. 656 (Hegaas v. Hegaas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hegaas v. Hegaas, 72 P. 656, 28 Mont. 266, 1903 Mont. LEXIS 89 (Mo. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

ME. CHIEF JUSTICE BEANTLY

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

Appeal from an order setting aside a default and judgment, entered upon tbe failure of tbe defendant to appear and make defense. Tbe service of summons was constructive, tbe defendant being a resident of tbe state of Washington at tbe time tbe action was brought. Tbe application was made upon affidavits tending to show that tbe default and judgment were entered against tbe defendant through her excusable neglect in failing to interpose her defense within tbe time allowed by tbe statute. Under Section 774 of the Code of Civil Procedure such applications are addressed to' tbe discretion of tbe district court, and, in tbe absence of a manifest abuse of such discretion, this court will not interfere. We have examined tbe affidavits filed by tbe defendant in support of her motion, and we are not able to say that tbe district court manifestly abused tbe discretion lodged in it by tbe statute. Tbe order complained of is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

ME. CHIEF JUSTICE BEANTLY

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

Appeal from an order setting aside a default and judgment, entered upon tbe failure of tbe defendant to appear and make defense. Tbe service of summons was constructive, tbe defendant being a resident of tbe state of Washington at tbe time tbe action was brought. Tbe application was made upon affidavits tending to show that tbe default and judgment were entered against tbe defendant through her excusable neglect in failing to interpose her defense within tbe time allowed by tbe statute. Under Section 774 of the Code of Civil Procedure such applications are addressed to' tbe discretion of tbe district court, and, in tbe absence of a manifest abuse of such discretion, this court will not interfere. We have examined tbe affidavits filed by tbe defendant in support of her motion, and we are not able to say that tbe district court manifestly abused tbe discretion lodged in it by tbe statute. Tbe order complained of is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 P. 656, 28 Mont. 266, 1903 Mont. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegaas-v-hegaas-mont-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack