History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. Heyns
78 Ind. App. 565
Ind. Ct. App.
1922
Check Treatment
Nichols, P. J.

— 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Heyns
Court Name: Indiana Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 6, 1922
Citation: 78 Ind. App. 565
Docket Number: No. 11,344
Court Abbreviation: Ind. Ct. App.
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.