Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

184 Ind. 734

Costello v. Wallace

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1915

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1915-12-14

<p>Judgment. — Default.—Petition to Set Aside. — Findings.—Conclusiveness. — A finding of fact against defendants on their petition to vacate a judgment taken against them on default, having some evidence to support it, is conclusive on appeal.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1915-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1972

6 state decisions

301915192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lairy, J.

¶1Appellee obtained a judgment against appellants in the superior court for damages on account of personal injuries. The judgment was rendered on default on January 28, 1913, and on February 5, 1913, appellants filed their petition to set aside the judgment and default and to be permitted to defend. Appellee filed an answer to this petition in general denial. The issue thus joined was tried by the court upon affidavits and oral testimony and a decision was rendered in favor of appellee The trial court denied the prayer of appellants’ petition and refused to set aside the judgment and default and this ruling is assigned as error on appeal.

¶2The application of appellants was based upon §405 Burns 1914, §396 R. S. 1881, and states as a ground for relief that neither of them had any actual notice that this action had been filed against them or that it was pending until February 3, 1913, on which day they were notified by the attorney for appellee of the judgment that had been rendered against them. The application stated that defendants had a valid defense to the cause of action stated in the complaint together with a statement of the facts constituting such defense, and no claim is made on behalf of appellee that the facts stated in the application are not sufficient to warrant the relief prayed.

¶3By the application and the' general denial addressed thereto, an issue of fact was presented for the decision of the trial court. In deciding that issue, the court apparently found that the appellants did have actual notice of the pendency of the action in time to have interposed their defense. There is some evidence upon which this finding can rest and that is sufficient to sustain it on appeal.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

¶5Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 660. See, also, 4 C. J. 847; 3 Cyc 366.

/184/ind/734 · .json · Public domain