¶1The presiding Judge was correct in decreeing for the plaintiff, upon defendant’s failure to answer the interrogatories. This is the settled practice in the summary process jurisdiction ; Walker v. Mathaney, Harp. 187, and the rule in this respect has never been changed. The motion for a new trial is refused.
18 S.C.L. 446
Fulmore v. Cockfield
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Decided June 15, 1831
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1831-06-15
<p>The defendant in summary process was required to answer on interrogatories, whether he had not verbally accepted an order on him for the payment of money, and whether the debt was not justly due by him. to plaintiff: Held, that on his neglect or refusal to answer, plaintiff was in-titled to a decree pro confesso.</p>
Decided 1831-06-15