Equity Practice, State and Federal; With Statutes, Rules, Forms and Precedents Volume 1 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ... on failure to file answer to interrogatories after answer has been filed to the bill. Rosenau v. Powell, 63 So. 1020 (Ala. 1913). Or for failure to file sufiicient answer after exceptions allowed. See Chapter XIII, Answers, Sections 272 to 276, post, pp. 468 ct seq, and especially the rules and statutes cited in note 96, post, p. 476. 6. Smith v. Mutual, etc., Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 599 (1876), semble; Hale v. Continental, etc., Co., 20 Fed. 344 (1884). 7. Insurance Co. v. Jenkins, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 589 (1841). But a bill cannot be taken pro confesso for failure to answer immaterial amendments. Black v. Lusk, 69 lll. 70 (1873). Or where the amendments were improper under the rules. International, etc., Co. v. Vause, 55 Fla. 641 (1908). 8. Alabama, Eq. Rules 46, 48; Mississippi, Code, Sec. 595. 9. Dan. Ch. Pr., (6th Am. ed.) 524, citing Jopling v. Stuart, 4 Ves. 619; Bacon v. Grifiith, 4 Ves. 619n., 2 Dick. 473. In Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 1 (1854), there is a discussion of the question and authorities are cited. A decree pro confesso may be had against a defendant already in court who fails to answer a supplementary bill after a rule for that purpose. Mix v. Beach, 46 Ill. 311 (1867). 10. Florida. Sarasota, etc., Co. v. Lyle, 53 Fla. 1069 (1907). Illinois. Clark v. Hogle, 52 Ill. 427 (1869). Maryland. Hurtt v. Crane, 36 Md. 29 (1872). Michigan. Outhwite v. Porter, 13 Mich. 533 (1865). Mississippi. Chewning v. Nich 189. Several defendants. It is error, of course, to take the bill pro confesso against several defendants when process has been served on only one. The proper mode of procedure when a bill makes a joint charge against several defendants and one of them makes default, is simply to enter a default and a formal...

R515

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5150
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ... on failure to file answer to interrogatories after answer has been filed to the bill. Rosenau v. Powell, 63 So. 1020 (Ala. 1913). Or for failure to file sufiicient answer after exceptions allowed. See Chapter XIII, Answers, Sections 272 to 276, post, pp. 468 ct seq, and especially the rules and statutes cited in note 96, post, p. 476. 6. Smith v. Mutual, etc., Co., 2 Tenn. Ch. 599 (1876), semble; Hale v. Continental, etc., Co., 20 Fed. 344 (1884). 7. Insurance Co. v. Jenkins, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 589 (1841). But a bill cannot be taken pro confesso for failure to answer immaterial amendments. Black v. Lusk, 69 lll. 70 (1873). Or where the amendments were improper under the rules. International, etc., Co. v. Vause, 55 Fla. 641 (1908). 8. Alabama, Eq. Rules 46, 48; Mississippi, Code, Sec. 595. 9. Dan. Ch. Pr., (6th Am. ed.) 524, citing Jopling v. Stuart, 4 Ves. 619; Bacon v. Grifiith, 4 Ves. 619n., 2 Dick. 473. In Tedder v. Stiles, 16 Ga. 1 (1854), there is a discussion of the question and authorities are cited. A decree pro confesso may be had against a defendant already in court who fails to answer a supplementary bill after a rule for that purpose. Mix v. Beach, 46 Ill. 311 (1867). 10. Florida. Sarasota, etc., Co. v. Lyle, 53 Fla. 1069 (1907). Illinois. Clark v. Hogle, 52 Ill. 427 (1869). Maryland. Hurtt v. Crane, 36 Md. 29 (1872). Michigan. Outhwite v. Porter, 13 Mich. 533 (1865). Mississippi. Chewning v. Nich 189. Several defendants. It is error, of course, to take the bill pro confesso against several defendants when process has been served on only one. The proper mode of procedure when a bill makes a joint charge against several defendants and one of them makes default, is simply to enter a default and a formal...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 23mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

450

ISBN-13

978-1-236-91259-6

Barcode

9781236912596

Categories

LSN

1-236-91259-4



Trending On Loot