Case Name: STATE ex rel. SMOTHERMAN, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT et al., Respondents
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1915-12-22
Citations: 51 Mont. 495
Docket Number: No. 3,763
Parties: STATE ex rel. SMOTHERMAN, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT et al., Respondents.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Sanner concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. SMOTHERMAN, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT et al., Respondents.
(No. 3,763.)
(Submitted November 8, 1915.
Decided December 22, 1915.)
[153 Pac. 1019.]
D efault Judgments — Vaeation — District Courts — Jurisdiction —Certiorari.
1. A default judgment may not in any case, under section 6589, Devised Codes, be vacated after the expiration of six months from the date of its entry.
Original application for writ of certiorari by the state on the relation of W. D. Smotherman to annul an order of the District Court of Blaine County made in the case of Smotherman v. Ghrisitansen, pending therein.
Writ issued.
Mr. W. B. Sands, for Eelator, submitted a brief and argued the cause orally.
No appearance on behalf of Eespondents.

Opinion:
ME. JUSTICE HOLLOWAY
delivered the opinion of the court.
On February 3, 1915, Charles Christiansen moved the district court in and for Blaine county to set aside his default which had been entered on March 27, 1914, in an action pending in that court, wherein W. D. Smotherman was plaintiff and Charles Christiansen defendant. Eelief was sought upon the ground that the default resulted from inadvertence and excusable neglect. The motion was granted on April 13, and this proceeding was instituted to have the order annulled.
[1] Section 6589, Eevised Codes, provides: "The court may, in furtherance of justice upon such terms as may be just, relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment, order or other proceeding, taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; pro vided, that application, therefor be made within reasonable time, bnt in no case exceeding six months after such judgment, order or proceeding was taken. ' ' This statute has received consideration from this court in many cases, but in no other instance has there been a more succinct exposition of its meaning than in State ex rel. Happel v. District Court, 38 Mont. 166, 129 Am. St. Rep. 636, 35 L. R. A. (n. s.) 1098, 99 Pac. 291, where it is said: "Under the statute (Revised Codes, sec. 6589), the motion in such cases must be made within a reasonable time after the date of the entry of judgment, but in no case exceeding six months, and the statute is the limit of the court's power in such cases. After the expiration of the time limit fixed therein, the power of the court over the judgment absolutely ceases, and it is without jurisdiction to vacate or modify it."
Because the motion to set aside the default was not made until more than ten months after the default was entered, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant the order of April 13, 1915, and that order is accordingly annulled.
Order annulled.
Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Sanner concur.