Case ID: johns-cas_2/html/0110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson, ex dem. Quackenboss, against Woodward.()
    In ejectment, signing the consent rules, delivering a itevV declaration, putting in common bail and filing a plea are all simultaneous acts. And if the tenant neglects to file the plea instanter, default may be entered against the casual ejector.
    
    It appeared that the plaintiff’s attorney, at the time of delivering a new declaration, after the consent rules w;ere exchanged, not having received a plea, entered a rule in the cause against the tenant, to plead in twenty days ; which not being done, he proceeded to enter a default against the casual ejector.
    
    
      Emott
    
    now moved to set aside this default, for irregularity.
    
      Quackenboss, contra.
    
      
      
        (c) S. C., C. C. 120.
    
   Per Curiam.

The entry of the default in this manner, was certainly irregular. No rule could be entered against the casual ejector, in a cause entitled against the tenant. The signing the consent rule, delivering a new declaration, putting in common hail, and filing a plea, are all simultaneous acts; should the tenant, therefore, neglect to file his plea, instanter, he is to be considered as not appearing in the suit, and then a default is to be entered against the casual ejector. But the default against the casual ejector has been taken under the first rule at the return of the writ, and not in consequence of any new rnle.

Rule granted.() 
      
      
        (d) See Tlllinghasl’s Adams on Ejectment, Hogan’s ed. 1846, 247, 270. Jackson, ex dem. Van Alen, v. Vischer, supra, 106. S. C., C. C. 116.