Frow v. De La Vega
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
*554 Mr. Justice BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
If the court in such a case as this can lawfully make a final decree against one defendant separately, on the merits, while the cause was proceeding undetermined against the others, then this absurdity might follow: there might be one decree of the court sustaining the charge of joint fraud committed by the defendants; and another decree disaffirming the said charge, and declaring it to be entirely unfounded, and dismissing the complainant’s bill. And such an incongruity, it seems, did actually occur in this case. Such a state of things is unseemly and absurd, as well as unauthorized by law.
The true mode of proceeding where a bill makes a joint charge against several defendants, and one of them makes default, is simply to enter a default and a formal decree pro confesso against him, and proceed with the cause upon the answers of the other defendants. The defaulting defendant has merely lost his standing in court. He will not be entitled to service of notices in the cause, nor to appear in it in any way. He can adduce no evidence, he cannot be heard at the final hearing. But if the suit should be decided against the complainant on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all the defendants alike — the defaulter as well as.the others. If it be decided in the complainant’s favor, he will then be entitled to a final decree against all. But a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and illegal. This was so expressly decided by the New York Court of Errors, in the case of Clason v. Morris.
* Spencer, J., says: “It would be unreasonable to hold, that because one defendant had made default, the plaintiff should have a decree even against him, where the court is satisfied from the proofs offered by the other, that in fact the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree.”
† Irregularities, if any occurred in the proceedings after *555 the decree complained of, are not now before us for adjudication.
Decree reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, In conformity with this opinion.
* 10 Johnson, 524 .
† See 1 Hoffman’s Chancery Practice, 554.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 47 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a final judgment for joint fraud “against the 12 defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and 13 illegal”)
-
(holding that the default of one defendant cannot be entered before determining the liability of the non-defaulting defendant because the inconsistency of two different judgments against joint defendants would be illogical)
-
(holding that when a plaintiff “makes a joint charge against several defendants, and one of them makes default,” the court should “proceed with the cause upon the answers of the other defendants”)
-
(opining that absent the common-defense doctrine, defaults could result in an “absurdity” where courts both sustain a charge and deem it to be entirely unfounded)
-
(recognizing default judgment not appropriate when joint liability alleged and one party still defending)
-
(explaining that avoiding inconsistent judgments promotes reliance on the judicial system)
-
(stating if a suit is decided on merits against the Plaintiff, the complaint should be dismissed against all defendants, including the defaulting defendants)
-
(reversing default judgment as to property ownership when plaintiff lost as to answering defendants)
Cited by 508 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court3
- U.S. Courts of Appeals59
- Federal District Courts364
- Bankruptcy Courts8
- Federal Specialty Courts2
- Historical Federal Courts1
- State Highest Courts40
- State Appellate Courts30
- State Trial Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- State of Fla. v. COUNTRYWIDE TRUCK INS. AGCY.
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd.
- Estate of Otto v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, Inc.
- State ex rel. Department of Insurance v. Countrywide Truck Insurance Agency
- J.B., as legal guardian and personal representative of E.B., an adult with a disability v. MKBS, LLC d/b/a Metro Taxi, Inc.
- J.B., as legal guardian and personal representative of E.B., an adult with adisability : v. MKBS, LLC d/b/a Metro Taxi, Inc.
Most recent
- Chakradhar Yarlagadda, individually and as assignee of ProTak Ltd v. Nicholas Vu
- Mohsin Y. Meghiji, Litigation Administrator, as Representative for the Post-Effective Date Debtors v. Antoine Castel; Mohsin Y. Meghiji, Litigation Administrator, as Representative for the Post-Effective Date Debtors v. Wallet Owner Oxdbe13e67f678cc00591920cece4dca6322a79ac7
- Mohsin Y. Meghii, Litigation Administrator, as Representative for the Post-Effective Date Debtors v. Antoine Castel; Mohsin Y. Meghii, Litigation Administrator, as Representative for the Post-Effective Date Debtors v. Wallet Owner Oxdbe13e67f678cc00591920cece4dca6322a79ac7
- Moenay Womack, individually and as Guardian ad Litem of M.J., T.J., and J.J., minors v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company; Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Jamaris Jordan
- Modern Woodmen of America v. Jeremiah P. Banks
- Great American Assurance Company v. Weed
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.