Court Opinion

ID: 5438036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 17:57:23.23863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:53.288229
License: Public Domain

By the Court:
We think the Court below erred in opening the default against the defendant Thompson. There was no showing on his behalf to excuse his failure to answer, and, so far as appears from this record, there was no reason why the default against him should be set aside. But in respect to the defendant Hall, we cannot say, upon the facts disclosed by his affidavit, that the Court abused its discretion in opening the default and permitting him to answer.
On the question of diligence, the showing was not entirely satisfactory, but was not so fatally defective as to justify the conclusion that the Court below abused its discretion in opening the default.
Order reversed as to the defendant Thompson, and affirmed as to the defendant Hall.