Smith v. Heyns

Indiana Court of Appeals

Smith v. Heyns

136 N.E. 563, 78 Ind. App. 565, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 141

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1922

DocketNo. 11,344

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 136 N.E. 563 (Smith v. Heyns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Heyns, 136 N.E. 563, 78 Ind. App. 565, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 141 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, P. J.

— 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

Nichols, P. J.

— 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 N.E. 563, 78 Ind. App. 565, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-heyns-indctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack