History
  • No items yet
midpage
Crandall v. Piette
1 Or. 226
Or.
1856
Check Treatment
Williams, C. J.

Defendant allowed judgment to go against him by default before the justice, and could not, for that reason, afterwards appear* and defend as a matter of right; his application, therefore, for leave to answer, was addressed to the discretion of the District Court. That court, in the exercise of such discretion, might allow, or refuse altogether the application, or might grant it, upon such terms as in its judgment were just under the circumstances. We cannot, *227as a general practice, overrule the exercise of discretion by the District Court, and if we could, there is no very apparent error in refusing to remove a legal bar to plaintiff’s defence, simply to enable him to interpose a legal bar to the plaintiff’s right of recovery.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Crandall v. Piette
Court Name: Oregon Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 15, 1856
Citation: 1 Or. 226
Court Abbreviation: Or.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.