Langdon v. Bullock

8 Ind. 341
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 8 Ind. 341 (Langdon v. Bullock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Langdon v. Bullock, 8 Ind. 341 (Ind. 1856).

Opinion

Stuart, J.

Bullock and wife had judgment against Langdon below by default. Langdon filed an affidavit and moved to set aside the default. Motion overruled. Langdon excepted, and took Ms appeal.

Several errors are assigned, which will be noticed in their order.

1. The complaint does not show in what respect the wife was the meritorious cause of action. This, was, perhaps, a good objection at common law, but not under our statute.

Without noticing the time ■ and manner of making this objection, it is sufficient to say that the party might have amended below by striking out the name of the wife. 2 R. S. p. 48, s. 99. The amendment would, if necessary, be regarded as made here. The State v. Cross, 6 Ind. R. 387.

2. It is urged that the Court erred in entering a default against the defendant on the first calling of the cause. He should, it is said, have been first ruled to plead, and then if he failed to comply, he might be defaulted. That is the course with parties who appear at the first calling; but if on such calling the defendant is not present, no rule can be taken against him, and a default is to be taken in the first instance. This is clearly the scope of the statute. 2 R. S. p. 42, ss. 68, 69.

3. It is urged that, as the suit was for the tortious taking of personal property, the assessment of damages by the Court was erroneous. That was the common-law doctrine, but the rule is changed by statute. By failing to appear at the trial, a jury is waived. 2 R. S. p. 115, s. 340.

4. The fourth error assigned, is the refusal of the Court to set aside the judgment by default, upon affidavit filed to the effect that he had no recollection of [343]*343the service of summons,’and hence did not appear. We do not think the Court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside tbe default for that cause. 2 R. S. pp. 48, 49, s. 99.

J. P. Usher, for tbe appellant.

Per Curiam.

Tbe judgment is affirmed with costs.

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

Related

City of Gary v. Baker
333 N.E.2d 808 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1975)
Chicago & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Adams
39 N.E. 877 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Jensen v. Barbour
31 P. 592 (Montana Supreme Court, 1892)
Buchanan v. Berkshire Life Insurance
96 Ind. 510 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Brumbaugh v. Stockman
83 Ind. 583 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Fisk v. Baker
47 Ind. 534 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Voris v. State xe rel. Davis
47 Ind. 345 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Briggs v. Sneghan
45 Ind. 14 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Ind. 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langdon-v-bullock-ind-1856.