Holbrook v. Prettyman

Citations

• 44 Ill. 311

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery practice—irregular practice. Where a defendant to a bill in chancery, was ruled to answer within a certain time, and after the expiration of the rule, filed his answer, and afterward obtained leave to amend it, but, instead thereof, filed a cross-bill, and took a rule upon complainant in the original bill, to answer instanter, and at the same time, and in the same order, took a pro confesso decree upon his cross-bill, granting him affirmative relief,— held, that the complainant should have had a reasonable time given him, to answer the cross-bill. That under such circumstances, to allow defendant to take a pro confesso decree instanter, was irregular and unreasonable.</p> <p>2. Same. In such case, while leave to file an amended answer was pending, and the amended answer was not filed, the complainant was under no obligation to reply to the original answer.</p>