Spratly v. Putnam Fire Ins.

5 Kan. 155
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 Kan. 155 (Spratly v. Putnam Fire Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spratly v. Putnam Fire Ins., 5 Kan. 155 (kan 1869).

Opinion

By the Court,

Sarrord, J.

This is a proceeding brought to reverse an order of the district court of Leavenworth county, setting aside a default made by the defendant in a cause pending in said court, and giving said defendant leave to file an answer to the plaintiff’s petition upon the payment of costs.

disobetiohaby mg DefauE. The application to open the default, and for leave to answer, was addressed to the disere[159]*159tiou of the court and supported by affidavit, the object of which was to show that the defendant had a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s claim.

That the court had the power to allow an answer to be filed upon terms at any time before default cannot be questioned. [§ 114, Code 1859.] And we do not think that this power was in any manner affected by the mere entry of the default, and the order that the cause stand in its proper place on the trial docket for the assessment of damages.

The section referred to is certainly broad enough in its terms to justify such a construction, and we can see no good reason why it should not be given.

, This whole matter, then, of setting aside defaults and allowing answers to be filed after the time at which they may be due, under circumstances like those surrounding the case at bar, rest with the court in its discretion; and when such discretion has been expressed, the rule should obtain that a reviewing court will not interfere unless it shall appear that the court has abused its power.' 17 III, 474.

There is no claim that such is the case here; therefore the action of the district court must be affirmed.

All the justices concurring.

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

Related

Hopkins v. Hopkins
47 Kan. 103 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)
Freeman v. Hill
45 Kan. 435 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)
Merten v. Newforth
25 P. 204 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
First National Bank v. Wentwort
28 Kan. 183 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1882)
Swerdsfeger v. State
21 Kan. 475 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1879)
Clark v. Spencer
14 Kan. 398 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1875)
Brown v. Holmes
13 Kan. 482 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Kan. 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spratly-v-putnam-fire-ins-kan-1869.