102 Minn. 405 | Minn. | 1907
This action was brought for the purpose of having the marriage between appellant and respondent declared void upon the ground of fraud and duress. No appearance having been made by respondent, judgment was entered upon default. Respondent then moved to open the judgment and for leave to answer. The trial court granted the motion, and the question here is: Did the court have power to open such judgment, and, if so, was there an abuse of discretion?
This is not an action for a divorce under section 3574, R. L. 1905, but it is an action to secure the annulment of the marriage, as provided by section 3570, upon the ground that it had been procured by means of fraud and duress; the parties never having cohabited. The action is authorized upon the theory that there never was a marriage
We have read all the affidavits and pleadings. This is not a case calling for a discussion in detail of the claims of the respective parties. Considering the possibility that appellant was attempting to relieve himself from a burden imprudently assumed and the unfortunate situation in which the respondent was left by the judgment annulling the marriage, we are of opinion that the trial court wisely opened the judgment and directed the case to be heard upon its merits.
Affirmed.