Kuratle v. Pyle

Citations

• 12 Del. Ch. 112
• 107 A. 788
• 1919 Del. Ch. LEXIS 16

Syllabus

<p>Where defendant in an action at law failed to file affidavit of defense, and judgment was obtained against her because her attorney had been misled by the attorney for plaintiff as to the conduct of the proceedings, in defendant's suit in equity for relief against the consequences of such misleading conduct, testimony of defendant’s attorney, conducting her suit in equity, who had also represented her in the action at law, as to an. agreement with plaintiff's counsel, made in open court, which misled him, is admissible.</p> <p>Where the attorney for plaintiff in a suit on notes unintentionally deceived ■ the attorney for defendant into thinking that it had been agreed that the case of defendant against plaintiff suing on the notes and the two cases of plaintiff against defendant, or one of them, would be tried together after the latter had been pleaded to issue, the filing of affidavit of demand by plaintiff, and taking judgment for want of affidavit of defense, was a breach of the agreement, and the judgment will not be allowed to stand.</p> <p>The statutory power given the Superior Court to open a judgment obtained by default and let defendant into a trial, when it appears he had no notice of the action, does not oust the Court of Chancery of jurisdiction of suit to vacate the judgment, where in the conduct of the cause plaintiff misled defendant to the latter’s injury; i. e., the taking of a default judgment.</p> <p>Where there was no denial or explanation of an incident between counsel deceptive to defendant’s counsel, the rule of court requiring agreements of counsel to be in writing should not bar defendant, injured by the deceptive conduct, from obtaining appropriate relief in the Court of Chancery.</p> <p>Where plaintiff, suing on notes, took judgment by default for want of affidavit of defense, his counsel by an oral agreement having deceived defendant’s, in defendant’s suit to vacate such judgment, decree for defendant should not only vacate the judgmen