200 Ala. 286
76 So 52
Decided May 31, 1917
Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1917-05-31
<p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>Equity <&wkey;418 — Decree Pro Confesso.</p> <p>Although the answer filed to a bill of complaint was not sufficiently complete, a decree taken pro confesso subsequent to such filing was not authorized, and a final decree in part based upon such decree pro confesso, will be reversed.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. §§ 952-971.]</p> <p>Mayfield, J., dissenting.</p> <p><S=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1939
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed and remanded upon rehearing · Decided 1917-05-31
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1 On Rehearing.
¶2 The majority are of the opinion that the decree should he reversed. The final decree is based upon -a decree pro confesso, which said decree pro confesso was improperly taken after respondents had filed an answer to the bill of complaint. Whether or not the answer was sufficiently complete matters not, as the décree pro confesso was not authorized so long as said answer was on file. Ferrell et al. v. Leonard, 76 South. 51, ante, p. 285.
¶3 Reversed and remanded.