Manning v. Lovett, 39937
| Citation | 87 So.2d 494,228 Miss. 191 |
| Decision Date | 21 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 39937,39937 |
| Parties | Everett MANNING v. A. K. LOVETT and Mary McCormick Lovett, d/b/a Lovett Motor Company. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ben H. Walley, Leakesville, for appellant.
Sidney B. Majure, Newton, for appellees.
This appeal is from a refusal of the circuit judge to set aside a judgment by default which had been taken against Manning, the appellant. The case is grounded in these circumstances: In August 1954, the declaration was filed against Manning. On September 13, 1954, the trial court granted Manning sixty days within which to plead. Discussions of probable compromise and settlement of the case were had between counsel for the parties. However, no settlement agreement was reached. On March 21, 1955, the case was called in open court, whereupon both counsel announced to the trial judge that an agreed order of settlement would be submitted to the court on March 24th, or, if not, that answer would be filed and the case could go to trial, and no point would be made by plaintiff because plea of defendant had not been filed before March 24th. It appears counsel for plaintiff knew what the plea would be. The suit was pending at New Augusta in Perry County, Mississippi. Counsel for Manning resided in Leakesville in Greene County. On March 22, 1955, counsel for Manning was engaged before the Mississippi Public Service Commission at Leakesville in a matter of considerable public importance. He was the leading counsel for his side in that proceeding. The hearing had continued to March 24th. That was the day the plea was due to be filed in the trial of the case at New Augusta. Counsel for Manning placed a telephone call for counsel for Lovett but before reaching opposing counsel a deputy sheriff at New Augusta called counsel for Manning at Leakesville and informed him the trial judge had said this case was set for trial that day if no settlement had been reached. Counsel for Manning informed the deputy of the circumstances confronting him, and requested the deputy to ask the trial judge to pass this case to a later day in the term so as to enable him to finish the Public Service hearing and be present for the trial. The trial judge did not assent to that request. It is not clear whether counsel for Manning knew of such nonassent. After talking with the deputy sheriff, counsel for Lovett responded to the telephone call counsel for Manning had made to him, and counsel for Manning informed counsel of his situation and of the contents of the conversation with the deputy sheriff and of his request for the case to be passed to a later day in the term. Counsel for Lovett did not agree to this request. The case was called and the default judgment was taken under the foregoing circumstances. On March 28, 1955, while the court was yet in session, Manning filed his plea and also moved the court to set aside the default judgment, which the court declined to do, from which action this appeal was taken.
In Southwestern Surety Insurance Company v. Treadway, 113 Miss. 189, 74 So. 143, 145, this Court announced the rules embodying the factors to be considered in determining whether or not a default judgment should be set aside:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Paper Co. v. Basila
...Hospital, 241 Miss. 15, 128 So.2d 584 (1961); Campbell v. Campbell, 231 Miss. 658, 97 So.2d 527, p. 528 (1957); Manning v. Lovett, 228 Miss. 191, 87 So.2d 494, p. 496 (1956); and Planters Lumber Co. v. Sibley, 130 Miss. 26, 93 So. 440 (1922). See, however: James v. Hall, 197 So.2d 226 The t......
-
Bell v. City of Bay St. Louis
...it is the policy of our system of judicial administration to favor disposition of cases on their merits. Manning v. Lovett, 228 Miss. 191, 195, 87 So.2d 494, 496 (1956); Southwestern Security Insurance Company v. Treadway, 113 Miss. 189, 197, 74 So. 143, 145 (1917). Default judgments are no......
-
Gordon v. Dickerson
...at the proper time when duly summoned, there should be proper and reasonable punishment for such negligence on the part of the litigant." Id. (quoting Treadway, 74 So. at 145). But, "[w]here there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not a default judgment should be vacated, the doubt sho......
-
Young v. Smith
...system of judicial administration to favor disposition of cases on their merits.” Bell, 467 So.2d at 661 (citing Manning v. Lovett, 228 Miss. 191, 195, 87 So.2d 494, 496 (1956); S.W. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Treadway, 113 Miss. 189, 197, 74 So. 143, 145 (1917)). ¶ 28. The trial judge in the present......