
    Lawrence Riley vs. William E. Hale.
    Middlesex.
    March 26, 1888.
    April 2, 1888.
    Present: Morton, C. J., Devens, W. Allen, C. Allen, & Holmes, JJ.
    
      Judgment — Review — A bsence — Laches.
    
    A judgment by default in a civil action against a defendant, on whom personal service was made and by whom an appearance was entered, is not rendered in his “ absence,” within the Pub. Sts. c. 187, § 22, and a petition for a review, filed more than a year after it has been rendered, but within a year after he had notice thereof, is too late.
    
      Petition, filed August 5, 1886, for a review of a judgment rendered upon the petitioner’s default, by the Superior Court, on June 80, 1883, alleging that it was filed within one year after he first had notice of the judgment.
    Hearing before W. Allen, J., who found that the petitioner had shown such probable ground of defence to the original action as might entitle him to a writ of review, but that he had not used such diligence as to entitle him to it; that the writ in that action was duly served on him, and he entered his personal appearance therein; that the action was continued, and he did nothing further about it, under the mistaken belief that it was not necessary to do anything further; and that nothing was done by the plaintiff in that action, or by his attorney, to induce such a belief.
    The judge refused, as matter of law, to grant the petition; and the petitioner alleged exceptions.
    
      H. N. Allin W. Howland, for the petitioner,
    cited Hutchinson v. Gurley, 8 Allen, 23.
    
      W. F. Slocum, for the respondent.
   By the Court.

This is a petition filed on August 5, 1886, to review a judgment of the Superior Court rendered on June 30, 1888. In the original suit, personal service was made upon the petitioner, and he entered his personal appearance therein. The judgment was not rendered in his absence, within the meaning of § 22 of c. 187 of the Public Statutes, and therefore the presiding justice who heard this petition for review pi’operly ruled that it could not be maintained. Matthewson v. Moulton, 135 Mass. 122. Smith v. Brown, 136 Mass. 416.

Exceptions overruled.  