Mondell v. Shafer
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County, in Equity. On the 22nd of July, 1876, the appellee filed her bill of complaint to foreclose a mortgage against the appellants, and the proper parties were made defendants. The defendants were duly summoned, hut failed to appear and answer, and on the 4th of October, 1876, the Court passed an interlocutory decree and issued a commission, ex parte, to take testimony.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County, in Equity. On the 22nd of July, 1876, the appellee filed her bill of complaint to foreclose a mortgage against the appellants, and the proper parties were made defendants. The defendants were duly summoned, hut failed to appear and answer, and on the 4th of October, 1876, the Court passed an interlocutory decree and issued a commission, ex parte, to take testimony. A copy of the complainant’s mortgage was filed with the bill of complaint, and the evidence taken under the commission was returned to the Court and filed 17th of October, 1876…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
The Code provides that whenever a defendant has been summoned, and fails to appear or to put in an answer, the Court may, upon the application of the complainants, pass an interlocutory decree and direct a commission ex parte to issue to take testimony to support the allegations in the bill; and the testimony thus taken shall have the same effect as if taken in the usual way on answer, and the Court shall proceed to a final decree in the cause, in the same manner as if the defendant had appeared and put in his answer. See. 115, Art. 16, Code.
In this case the defendants, now appellants, were…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Phelan v. CrosbyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1845
- Carroll v. NorwoodGeneral Court of Virginia · 1799