Minnehaha National Bank v. Hurley

Citations

• 13 S.D. 18
• 82 N.W. 87
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>Where on dismissal of plaintiff’s action on a note, defendant discharged his attorney, removed from the county, and paid no attention to the action, though advised that a new trial h-id been granted, and plaintiff again placed the cause on the trial calendar, without notice of such atlorncy’s discharge, and recovered judgment thereon, and defendant’s answer in the former action alleged that the note, bad been given to plaintiff’s indorser for beer alleged to have been illegally sold, of which plaintiff bad notice, while the undisputed ovidt nee showed that the note had heeu given for beer purchased from one other than such indorser, defendant was not entitled to have the judgment vacated, though he believed that the action C'mld not be again tried without notice to him, since, by reason of the variance between his answer and the proof, he showed no defense to the action, and had been guilty of negligence, to which his misunderstanding had not contributed.</p>