Case ID: scl_18/html/0446-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fulmore & Gamble v. Josiah Cockfield.
    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.
    
    
      Ou appeal from the decree of Mr. Justice Gantt, at Williamsburgh, Spring Term, 1831.
   O’Neall, J.

The 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.

Johnson, J. and Harper, J. concurred.