Redfield v. Miller
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Rothrock, J.
It will be observed that the answer- was filed some eighteen days after the time fixed by consent of. the parties. It was filed, however, eight or nine months *394 before the next term of court. There is no pretense that the answer is in any way insufficient. There is the further consideration that the plaintiff introduced a new cause of action in his amendment. It should also be stated that the defendant in vacation made an application to the judge of the court below for an order extending the time for answer which was granted. It is true this application was without notice to the plaintiff. We think that under these circumstances there was no abuse of the discretion of the court in refusing the default taking into consideration the showing made in vacation, the fact that the amendment introduced a new cause of action, and, further, that no delay was occasioned by the failure to answer within the time. Courts should favor trials upon the merits.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.