Carroll v. Sobel

Alessandroni, J.,

— A petition for a rule “to show cause why the order for bill to be taken pro confesso for want of an answer against the defendant should not be opened” was filed by defendant before a decree pro confesso was entered.

The docket entries disclose that more than two months after the bill in equity was filed and served, defendant was permitted to place his answer upon the record even though a month prior to the filing of that answer an order for the bill to be taken pro confesso for want of an answer had been entered. ,

We are thus confronted with an irregular record. The Equity…