Smith v. Heyns
Opinion
— This appeal is from a ruling of the court against appellant on .his application to set aside a default and judgment in ejectment against him resulting from the negligence of appellant’s attorney in failing to appear for him. No excuse whatever is given for the attorney’s failure to appear. That such failure is not a sufficient reason for setting aside a default and judgment, see Moore v. Horner (1896), 146 Ind. 287, 45 N. E. 341; Heaton v. Peterson (1892), 6 Ind. App. 1, 31 N. E. 1133; Harlow v. First Nat. Bank (1902), 30 Ind. App. 160, 173, 65 N. E. 603; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan (1903), 31 Ind. App. 597, 68 N. E. 923; Mutual [566]*566Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Ross (1908), 42 Ind. App. 621, 86 N. E. 506; Vapinski v. Tosetti (1913), 53 Ind. App. 547, 102 N. E. 51.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
136 N.E. 563 (Smith v. Heyns) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.