Schultz v. Meiselbar

Appellate Court of Illinois

Schultz v. Meiselbar

44 Ill. App. 233, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 574

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 9, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 44 Ill. App. 233 (Schultz v. Meiselbar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schultz v. Meiselbar, 44 Ill. App. 233, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 574 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

On the 18th clay of November, 1891, a judgment by default, in all respects regular so far as the record shows, was entered in favor of the appellee, and against the appellant. Shortly thereafter the appellant moved to set aside the default upon affidavits that he owed the appellee nothing, and that when the judgment was entered the declaration was not with the files, but in the possession of his attorney, who through press of business had been obliged to neglect many smaller matters. Whether the attorney is solvent does not appear. Wilful or careless neglect by a defendant of his cause, will generally prevent him from relief from the consequences, even if he have merits, whether the case be in chancery (Smith v. Brittenham, 88 Ill. 291) or at law (Union Hide and Leather Co. v. Woodley, 75 Ill. 435); and the negligence of the attorney is the negligence of the party. Stenzel v. Sims, 25 Ill. App. 538; Walsh v. Walsh, 114 Ill. 655.

No authority is cited, nor is it probable that any can be found, that the possession by the defendant, of the declaration filed in time, extends his time to plead, or prevents the entry of his default for not pleading. The judgment is affirmed.

• Judgment affirmed.

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

Gary, J.

On the 18th clay of November, 1891, a judgment by default, in all respects regular so far as the record shows, was entered in favor of the appellee, and against the appellant. Shortly thereafter the appellant moved to set aside the default upon affidavits that he owed the appellee nothing, and that when the judgment was entered the declaration was not with the files, but in the possession of his attorney, who through press of business had been obliged to neglect many smaller matters. Whether the attorney is solvent does not appear. Wilful or careless neglect by a defendant of his cause, will generally prevent him from relief from the consequences, even if he have merits, whether the case be in chancery (Smith v. Brittenham, 88 Ill. 291) or at law (Union Hide and Leather Co. v. Woodley, 75 Ill. 435); and the negligence of the attorney is the negligence of the party. Stenzel v. Sims, 25 Ill. App. 538; Walsh v. Walsh, 114 Ill. 655.

No authority is cited, nor is it probable that any can be found, that the possession by the defendant, of the declaration filed in time, extends his time to plead, or prevents the entry of his default for not pleading. The judgment is affirmed.

• Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Ill. App. 233, 1892 Ill. App. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-meiselbar-illappct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack