Hale v. Vaughan

Dec 15, 1882
Reporters:
Before:
Stone
Per Curiam.

— The cause has been submitted without an argument in support of the assignments of error. We have, however, ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍examined them, and are not of opinion they are well taken. The answers to the cross-bill, which were stricken from the file, are not embodied in the record ; and, in their absence, we can not say that the ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍chancellor erred in striking them out. *146They may have been scandalous and impertinent, or, it may be, filed after a decree pro confesso had been obtained, without the leave of the court. All reasonable presumptions are indulged to support a judgment or ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍decree; intendments are not made for its reversal. The same remark ma,y be made as to the refusal of the chancellor to allow answers to be filed. If a decree pro confesso had been rendered against the defendants (which seems ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍to be the case), it could be set aside only on filing full and complete answers; and, if necessary to support the ruling of the chancellor, the answers not being introduced into the record, we must presume they were ‍​​​​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‍rejected because in this respect insufficient. There is nothing requiring notice in the other assignment of error.

Affirmed.

Stone, J., not sitting.