58 Minn. 196 | Minn. | 1894
The summons was served on all the defendants but Lockwood, March 20, 1893, and on him March 21st. On the 22d, Horton and Boggs procured an order to show cause, returnable on the 25th, why the service of the summons should not be set aside on the ground that when served they were members of the
Such an application, being addressed to the sound discretion of the court below, the only question is, did-it fairly.exercise that discretion? ,
It is claimed that it did not— , .'
•First, because it was not shown the judgment was taken through defendants’ mistake, inadvertence, or surprise, and the neglect to answer in time was not excused.
Second, because the answer proposed was insufficient.
Third, there was no sufficient affidavit: of merits.
After the orders were made setting aside the service, and until the mandate of this court was sent down, the defendants could hardly be expected to answer. In what was done after the mandate was filed they were not chargeable with negligence.
As to Horton and Boggs, the time to answer did not expire before the service was set aside. As to the other defaulting defendants it expired pending their application to set aside the sen-ice.
The answer proposed makes a material issue upon the allegations of the complaint, to wit, as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been taken by defendants. It does not appear to be either sham or irrelevant, and the court might allow it to be interposed, so that any question of law upon it might be raised and disposed of in an orderly manner.
The answer was joint. The affidavit of merits was made by three of the defendants on behalf of all, each swearing that he is personally familiar with all the facts in the cause. It was for the court -below to determine whether it was a compliance with the rules of that court.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 59 N. W. 1000.)