Case Name: DOUGLASS, vs. EVANS AND WHEATON
Court: Tennessee Superior Court of Law and Equity
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1804-05
Citations: 1 Overt. 82
Docket Number: 
Parties: DOUGLASS, vs. EVANS AND WHEATON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 82–84

Head Matter:
DOUGLASS, vs. EVANS AND WHEATON.
Equity. The bill had been taken pro confesso, against the defendants.
It was moved by Whiteside and Stewart, for the plaintiff, that a decree should be passed agreeably to the prayer of the bill, and the facts stated.
When a bill is taken pro confesso the complainant is not bound to prove the contract stated in the bill.
Counsel for the defendant objected.
The bill states a contract which ought to be proved so as to enable the plaintiff to obtain a decree. This case may properly be assimilated to a writ of enquiry at law, where it has always been conceived necessary to substantiate the demand by proof. In 1 & 2 Atk it is laid down as law, that the rules of this court are the same as those of a court of law, in this respect.
In courts of law, we even find, that it has been thought necessary upon the execution of a writ of enquiry, that a note without seal should be proved. It appears clearly from Vernon that the practice in chancery was, to require proof upon pro con fesso. It is true Piere Williams lays down a different rule, but the ancient one is certainly much the most reasonable, compatible with the liberty of the citizen and principles of the common law.
But in England, there was not so much reason for requiring proof as here. By the law of England a bill cannot be taken pro con fesso, unless in two instances. 1st. Where the writ has been served and the defendant fails to answer. 2nd. Where a debtor to avoid the demand of his creditor, or process of law absconds. In both instances, there is great propriety and justice in considering the bill as true. In this country, our practice is entirely different. Here a bill can be taken pro con fesso against a non resident, on whom no process has been served, & who perhaps never heard of an advertisement in a gazette, citing him to appear. There are a variety of cases in the books which shew, that the courts considered it necessary to make proof so as to authorize a decree. 5. Com. Dig. 558. 9. Bart. 233. 4. & 5. 5. Com. Dig. 562. shews what is necessary to be proved upon a writ of enquiry at law. 2 Ver. 696. 2 Ver. 389, 540, 404, 308 2. Com. Dig. 311. 312. 308 and 2 Vent. 161. exhibit a cursory view of the practice in chancery, in this respect.
It was further insisted that the act of 1782, c. 11. contemplates in every instance the service of process. The act 1787. c. 22. the first act which authorises a decree against a non resident—but this as in England was predicated upon an idea of the defendants absconding; these acts embrace the two principles which have obtained in England. The 2d and 15th sections of the acts of 1801, c. 6. convey the meaning of the legislature, in this respect, and shew that proof is necessary upon an ex parte hearing.
Whiteside, and Stewart, e contra,
relied upon 2 Piere Williams 556. and 2. Eq. Cas. 179.
2 Com. Dig. 304.
1 Ver. 223 247.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The case in 2. P. W. 556 clearly shews what is the practice in England. It is the most modern authority. The law as laid down in that case, shews that when a bill is taken pro confesso no proof is necessary, the bill being taken as true by the court. Our statutes have adopted the phraseology of the english law, it ought therefore to have the same import here as there. A defendant by suffering judgment by default at law admits something to be due. If the action be founded on a specialty, bill or note, it may be necessary to produce them at the trial, but no other proof is necessary.
Where damages are uncertain, it becomes absolutely necessary, that a jury should intervene, to say what has been sustained, otherwise it cannot appear to the court.
The act of 1801 does not apply to this case because the order was made before the passage of the act—The act may prescribe a different rule in future, but it cannot affect that which was past.
No proof seems necessary, and let the cause be heard accordingly.
White and Campbell, J.—Overton, J. absent.
2Contra 4 Hen & Mun 476.
See 3 John 58 65 Hard Rep. 45.
Selwyn's N. P. 388.