Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana Volume 138

Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana Volume 138

By (author) 

List price: US$22.41

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1895 edition. Excerpt: ...judgment by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ' Second. That he was reasonably diligent in discovering the fraud. Third. That having discovered the fraud, he proceeded with reasonable diligence to ask such relief as the law affords. Fourth. He must show that he had a meritorious defense to the action in whichthe fraudulent judgment was procured, and-that the result will probably be different if he is allowed to open up the judgment and defend. ' Fifth. If the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, and the fraud perpetrated was in the procurement of jurisdiction, he can not attack such judgment collaterally, but must ask that the judgment be opened up to such an extent only as will allow him to make a meritorious defense.. ' The appellant has not, by his complaint, brought himself or his defense within any of these rules. According to the allegations of the complaint, appellant appeared to the action in which the judgment was rendered (No. 9,917), for he filed his demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled, whereupon he was ruled to answer. The filing of a demurrer to the complaint has always been recognized as a full personal appearance to the action. 1 Works Prac., 224; Knight v. Low, 15 Ind. 375. The court, therefore, had jurisdiction of the subjectmatter and the parties, and, on June 8, 1880 (the day the demurrer was filed), the action was pending in the Vigo Circuit Court. Appellant alleges that in 1881, he left the State and until 1887; he also alleges that no one was authorized to appear for him in said action. It thus appears that he deliberately left a pending action from 1881 to November 3, 1885, when the judgment was rendered, with no one looking after his interests. This makes a case...
show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 236 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 426g
  • English
  • Illustrations, black and white
  • 1236968824
  • 9781236968821