Haddock v. Wright

Citations

• 25 Fla. 202

Syllabus

<p>H. and two others made their promissorynote payable to J. R. H. or bearer, upon which R., the bearer, brought suit. Process was served on W. only. At the appearance term 1861 an attorney-at-law appeared for the defendants and continued to appear for them hill 1867, whenjudgment was rendered against the defendants. Execution issued and there were sales of land thereunder at different times from 1871 till 1887. The regularity of the proceedings was not questioned till more than 26 years after the commencement of suit, and more than 20 years after the rendition of the judg. ment, when, after the death of the attorney. H., (in an action of ejectment instituted against R. to recover a part of the land sold,) without offering to show that ho had a meritorious defense to the note, or that ho had not previously known of the former judicial proceedings and sales thereunder, proposed to show, by his own oath, that he had not been served with process in the former action, and had never employed or authorized the attorney to appear for him therein.</p> <p>This evidence was excluded.</p> <p>Held, That under the circumstances there was no error, in excluding the evidence so offered by H.</p>