Jesse J. Ellison v. Hollywood Credit

QUINN, Associate Judge. The question to be decided on this appeal is whether a default judgment should have been set aside
by the trial court. Hollywood Credit Clothing Company, Inc., sued appellant and his wife for the balance due on an unpaid
account. Service was had on appellant but not on his wife and after he failed to appear, default judgment was entered against
him on November 19, 1953. The following month an attachment was issued and certain credits were seized in the hands of appellant's
employer. On December 7, 1953, appellant and his wife (now deceased) sought relief through the Legal Aid Office of the District of
Columbia Bar Association. After investigation, which disclosed that the purchases had been made by appellant's wife prior
to their marriage, a representative of Legal Aid telephoned the credit manager of Hollywood in an attempt to effectuate an
agreement whereby appellant's wife would assume payments on the account. The following day a praecipe was filed, which had
been signed by appellant's wife, waiving service of summons and confessing judgment for the full amount. On the same day
another praecipe was filed, which had been signed by the attorney representing Hollywood and countersigned by appellant, releasing
the attachment with the understanding that Hollywood would retain twenty dollars of the funds seized and apply it to the indebtedness,
and with the further agreement that appellant's wife would pay two dollars per month thereafter on the judgment. Certain payments
were made and in August 1955 appellant's wife died. The following month additional credits of appellant were seized, whereupon
he filed a motion to vacate the judgment, quash the garnishment and release the funds condemned. At the hearing there was
conflict in the testimony as to whether Hollywood, in addition to releasing the attachment, had also agreed to set aside the
default judgment as to appellant when his wife voluntarily appeared and confessed judgment. The motion was denied and it is
from this ruling that appellant appeals.