Court Opinion

ID: 9537793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:24:23.633315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:02.754310
License: Public Domain

*1093HALLEY, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent in this case because I think the majority opinion rewards carelessness and negligence on the part of a lawyer appearing for the defendants, however, not counsel on this appeal. The record in this case discloses that each of the defendants was properly served with a summons in this case. On the 26th of September, 1956, they filed jointly a special appearance and motion to quash summons. On November 2, 1956, they filed a joint demurrer. The Journal Entry of Judgment shows that the demurrer was abandoned on November 19, 1956, and the defendants were given twenty days to answer. On the 17th of December 1956, the matter was set for trial on January 7, 1957. The defendants failed to appear either in person or by counsel. Counsel for plaintiff notified counsel for defendants of the setting of the case for January 7, 1957. No appearance was made on that date so the matter was continued to January 21, 1957, and placed on the regular motion docket. Again defendants failed to appear either in person or by counsel. A default judgment was entered against the defendants.
On February 28, 1957, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the judgment. On June 17, 1957, a hearing was had on the motion to vacate judgment. Testimony was offered and the trial judge refused to vacate the judgment. Two of the defendants testified. In my opinion the evidence offered failed to prove that the defendants had a defense to plaintiff’s suit. No evidence of payment was furnished.
There was no unavoidable casualty or misfortune in this case. It was simply a case of plain carelessness on the part of counsel and no doubt a feeling on his part that there was no defense to the case of plaintiff.
The rule in Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Kellum, Okl., 261 P.2d 610 and similar cases, is not applicable in this case because of the difference in the facts involved in this case and those cases. There is the additional reason that the possibility of collecting under a new judgment for the plaintiff would be greatly imperiled. Slothfulness should not be rewarded.
If original counsel for defendants was guilty of malpractice there lies the defendants’ remedy and not by vacating the judgment.
I dissent.