TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

De Coster v. Jorgenson

W. T. DE COSTER v. G. O. JORGENSON

De Coster v. Jorgenson, 163 N.W. 1069 (Minn. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 22, 1917
Docket
No. 20,334— (120)
Judges
Pee
Citations
163 N.W. 1069137 Minn. 4721917 Minn. LEXIS 772
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Judgment vacating default. Default judgment entered on September 30. Motion on November 8 of the following year to set it aside on the ground that it was taken through defendant’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. Held: There was not such a showing of excusable neglect as to'require a holding that the court abused its discretion. The evidence warranted the court in finding that defendant had no notice of the judgment until less than a year before making the motion, and the relief was not barred by laches. [Reporter.]
Summary
Action in the district court for Cottonwood county to recover $1,398 for services rendered by a physician. From an order, Nelson, J., vacating the judgment by default and- granting defendant leave to answer, the assignee of plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pee

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pee Curiam.

Plaintiff’s assignee appeals from an order granting a motion of defendant to set aside a default judgment obtained against him by plaintiff, and to permit defendant to answer. The judgment was entered September 30, 1915, and the motion by defendant under G. S. 1913, § 7786, to set it aside on the ground that it was taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise -or excusable neglect was made November 8, 1916. The principal grounds upon which a reversal is asked are: (1) That the court below abused its discretion in granting the relief; (2) that there was no authority under section 7786 to relieve defendant from this judgment because the motion was not made within one year after notice of the judgment.

The case made in support of the relief asked was not a strong one, but a majority of the court think that the showing of mistake or excusable neglect was sufficient to prevent our saying that the trial court abused its discretion, that the evidence warranted the court in finding that defend *473 ant had no notice of the judgment until less than one year before the motion was made, and that the relief is not barred by laches or lack of diligence in moving for it.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1941: 119412026peak 1941 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Holmes v. Conter295 N.W. 649 (Minn. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Holmes v. Conter295 N.W. 649 (Minn. 1941)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list