Case Name: Sarah L. Hodges et al. v. Martha Phillip et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1874-10
Citations: 50 Miss. 362
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sarah L. Hodges et al. v. Martha Phillip et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
Sarah L. Hodges et al. v. Martha Phillip et al.
1. Practice — Chancery — Answer Must be Sworn to. — In this state an answer to a bill in equity must be sworn to, otherwise it will, upon motion of complainant, be stricken from the files, and if the respondent declines to plead further, the eause may proceed regularly to final decree. This is the established practice in England and America. 1 Daniels Oh. Pr., 749, et seq. and notes. It is also the established practice in this state. Code of 1857, p. 547, art. 55; Rev. Code, 1871, § 1039.
Appeal from tbe Chancery Court of Noxubee County. Hon. Thomas Christian, Chancellor.
Complainants filed their bill in the chancery court of Noxubee county, based upon a writing obligatory, executed to them, as the bill alleges, in part payment for a lot of land in the town of Macon. The bill seeks to enforce the vendor’s lien. The defendants died an answer, but did not swear to it; complainant moved to strike it from the files, which motion was sustained, and defendants declined to plead further; a pro confesso was taken and decree rendered in accordance ,with the prayer of the bill, and the appeal is prosecuted to this court.
No counsel appeared for appellants.
Jarnigan & Rives, for appellees, filed a motion to dismiss, as a delay case.

Opinion:
Tarbell, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
An unsworn answer was, for that cause, on motion, stricken from the files. Eespondents declining to plead further, the cause proceeded regularly to a final decree, when an appeal was prosecuted to the action of the court in striking the answer from the files.
This action of the chancellor was in accordance with the English and American practice. 1 Daniel's Ch. Pr., 746, et seq. and notes. It is also the established practice in this state. Code, § 1029 ; Code of 1857, p. 547, art. 50; Hutch. Code, 770, § 3.
In one or two of the states, an answer on oath may be waived in accordance with special statutes; but with us, the rule is as above stated. No question is made as to the merits.
Decree affirmed.