Robinson v. Satterlee
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California
[This was a bill in equity by J. P. Robinson against John Satterlee.] Motion to set aside an order granting leave to file a supplemental answer; also, to set aside an order dismissing the bill under the sixty-sixth equity rule for failure to file replication. The bill was filed January 18, 1808. The defendant, Satterlee, entered his appearance March 2, 1808. April 18, in default of an answer, an order was entered taking the bill pro confesso.
Read the full summary
[This was a bill in equity by J. P. Robinson against John Satterlee.] Motion to set aside an order granting leave to file a supplemental answer; also, to set aside an order dismissing the bill under the sixty-sixth equity rule for failure to file replication. The bill was filed January 18, 1808. The defendant, Satterlee, entered his appearance March 2, 1808. April 18, in default of an answer, an order was entered taking the bill pro confesso. On application of defendant, Satterlee, the default was opened April 23, “with leave to file an answer herein within five days denying the allegations…
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, District Judge.
“An order to take the bill pro confesso haying been duly entered by the complainant’s solicitor on April IS, 1868, the solicitor for the defendants, on April 22, obtained from the court an order that the default be set aside, and that he have leave, on payment of complainant’s costs, to file within five days an answer denying the allegations of the complainant’s bill and setting up title in the defendants.
“On the succeeding day, the solicitor of the defendants moved for a modification of this order, so as to permit them to set up and plead a former recovery in favor-…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Simson v. HartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1816
- Belmont v. Erie Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1869
- Satterlee v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- White v. MunroeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Mithell v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1835
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Industrial & Mining Guaranty Co. v. Electrical Supply Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
- Potts v. AlexanderU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York · 1902
- Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. FolsomUnited States Circuit Court · 1880
- McDowell v. KurtzCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1896
- Ex parte BrownDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1905