¶1The decree which has been prepared by the plaintiff’s counsel, is incorrect in two particulars. First, it is absolute; and secondly, it decrees in a matter of an unsettled account, the sum claimed, without a reference to the master. The sixth rule prescribed by the supreme court certainly allows a very long time for the defendant to show cause why the decree pro confesso should not be made absolute. It cannot be made so in this case, before the April court of 1824. But I am clearly of opinion, that, if this bill had been taken for confessed at so early a part of this session, as to admit service of the decree, and a return before the final adjournment of the court, it might be made absolute at tlie next October session.
19 F. Cas. 141
Pendleton v. Evans
U.S. District Court
Decided April 15, 1823
U.S. District Court · decided 1823-04-15
The plaintiff, having complied with what was required by the court upon the former motion [Case No. 10,920], now renewed his motion to take the bill for confessed, and presented the form of a decree, that the defendants [Oliver Evans’ executors] should pay to the plaintiff the sums stated in the account annexed to the bill, ás well as other sums advanced by the plaintiff on account of the estate of the said Oliver Evans, since his death.
Decided 1823-04-15