Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Ind. App. 565

Smith v. Heyns

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 6, 1922

Indiana Court of Appeals · decided 1922-10-06

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1930

1 state decisions

Relies on Moore v. Horner · Heaton v. Peterson · Mutual Reserve Life Insurance v. Ross

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Nichols, P. J.

¶1— 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 *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.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/78/indapp/565 · .json · Public domain