Appellant's bare statement that he was not personally served with the summons does not rise to the status of excusable default since he does not contend that the method of substituted service was not proper. Nor is there any allegation that the judgment he seeks to reopen was fradulently obtained. There was, moreover, no contention of fraud by respondent in the procurement of appellant's promissory note, default in payment of which was the basis for the action leading to...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
