Case ID: minn_43/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Vanderburgh, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hiram O. Weller vs. George H. Hammer.
    April 25, 1890.
    Judgment by Default — Successive Motions for Belief on Same Grounds. Where no new facts have arisen, a motion cannot be renewed without leave, nor successive motions made for relief which might properly be included in the first motion.
    Same — Order Denying Motion — Beview on Appeal. — An order denying a motion for leave to answer after default will not be reviewed on appeal, except for abuse of discretion.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, denying his motion to set aside a judgment of $348.12, entered on failure to answer, and for leave to serve an answer.
    
      Chapin & Sauer, for appellant.
    
      John L. Townley, for respondent.
   Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant, after the plaintiff had taken judgment as upon default, moved the court to set aside the judgment, upon affidavits showing that the plaintiff had agreed to extend the time for answering, and that an answer had been served in time. This motion was denied, it appearing, among other things, that there was no written stipulation, and no legal service of an answer. The present motion was made to set aside the judgment, and for leave to-answer, upon substantially the same facts, except that the affidavit, shows that defendant’s counsel “understood” plaintiff’s attorney to-grant such further time to answer. This motion was also denied.

1. Upon the record, there^, was no abuse of discretion in refusing, the relief asked.

2. The defendant should have asked the additional relief on the-first motion, or obtained leave to renew the motion, no new facts having arisen.

Order affirmed.