Mandeville v. Winne
Opinion of the Court
The evidence is so contradictory, that I have doubted whether the complaint was served on the 5th or 6th of June. But I think I am bound to hold that the admission of the defendant, proved by the affidavit of Mr. King, outweighs, with the affidavit of the sheriff, the evidence on the part of the defendant, and shows the service to have been made on the 5th June.
The answer then was not served till after the twenty days for answering had expired, viz., on the 26th of June.
It is true the answer was served before judgment was entered, but I do not think it was therefore in time. The Code (§ 130) says “ the defendant shall have twenty days to answer.” The language is explicit. The time for answering is to be measured by days. No default is required to be entered at the expiration
I think the only safe practice is to require the defendant to answer within the twenty days. If he can not do so, the time may be extended; and if by mistake the time has elapsed without answering, he may always be reliéved on just terms.
The answer then was not served in time; but the defendant swearing to merits, the judgment must be set aside and defendant must have leave to answer on paying costs of judgment and of motion—in all fixed at $15.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.