he may not expect the clerk of court to see that his case is assigned and tried. That is his duty. Again the court erred in granting the petition to vacate on this ground.
III. Probably the chief reliance of the plaintiff is upon his third ground, which asserted "unavoidable casualty and misfortune" which prevented him from prosecuting his case. He divides his claim at this point into three grounds which he thinks support his contention. We quote them:
"(a) On the 20th day of October, 1961, an additional defendant, Shell Oil Company, Inc. was impleaded and said defendant was not served until November 3, 1961 and therefore did not appear nor was compelled to appear until after the September term 1961 had expired.
"(b) That on the 3rd day ofnor is it required that it do so. Mr. Honohan, a member of the law firm which represented plaintiff testified that he had been in the practice less than two years, and that he thought the term in the Muscatine district would end on the same date as in the Johnson district, where he resided and had chiefly practiced. His reason for thinking this is not apparent. He also said, however, that he had consulted with Mr. Cahill, senior member of the firm and a lawyer with long experience in the practice, in regard to various matters concerning the need for a motion for continuance under Rule 215.1; and he also admitted that they had in their offices a copy of the "1961 Iowa Legal Directory", and other