
    J. Royall McMurran vs. Benjamin F. Meek, Jr.
    October 21, 1891.
    leave to Answer after Judgment. — The application of defendant to have the judgment set aside, and for leave to serve an amended answer, held to have been properly denied.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., presiding, denying his motion to vacate a judgment of $113.75 and subsequent proceedings, and for leave to serve a proposed answer, in an action on a promissory note. An answer previously interposed had been stricken out as sham by order of Kerr, J., and judgment directed and entered for plaintiff.
    
      E. S. Thompson, for appellant.
    
      Lewis E. Jones, for respondent.
   Mitchell, J.

The application of defendant to have the judgment against him set aside, and for leave to interpose an amended answer, was addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court; and, upon the facts, there is no doubt but that this discretion was properly exercised in denying the application. Defendant’s original answer was palpably sham and frivolous, and did not even suggest the defence which he afterwards sought to interpose, — a fact which he must have known, as he verified the pleading personally. The fact that this answer had been stricken out came to his knowledge within a few days afterwards; he also had notice that judgment would be entered against him; and yet he took no steps in the matter for over two months, and until after he had been brought into court on proceedings supplementary to execution, wdien, for the first time, he sought to interpose a defence based upon an alleged state of facts suspiciously improbable. In view of this, it is unnecessary to consider under what circumstances a party may be entitled to relief from the consequences of ignorance or negligence on part of his attorney.

Order affirmed.  