Eaton v. Eaton
33 Mich. 305
Mich.1876Check Treatmentheld that the order pro confesso was premature and irregular; that it was not proper to enter such order before the proof of service of the subpoena was made and filed; and that, under the circumstances of this case at least, good practice required an affirmative showing that defendant had not appeared in the cause; that the order pro confesso being irregular, the subsequent steps taken in the cause cannot be sustained.
Decree reversed.