King v. Bell

Citations

• 54 Fla. 568

Syllabus

<p>1. An answer to a bill in chancery, not signed as required by law, on a motion for that purpose, is properly stricken from the files.</p> <p>2. An answer to a bill filed on the January rule day, 1906, not properly signed was properly stricken from the files on the 17th day of May, 1906, and after that day the clerk entered a nunc pro tunc decree pro confesso as of the rule day in January, 1906, without any order from the circuit judge to do so. This was improper; but inasmuch as by an order dated August 4th, 1906, made on a motion to vacate the decree pro confesso, which denied the motion to vacate, the action of the clerk in entering the decree pro confesso was recognized, no reversible error is shown.</p> <p>,3. Where a motion is made to vacate a decree pro confesso entered because no properly signed answer was filed on the rule day, when an answer was due, and said motion was made more than four months after said rule day, and no sufficient excuse shown for the delay in presenting a properly signed answer, the circuit judge commits no error in refusing to open the decree pro confesso, or in refusing to permit the answer to be signed and refiled.</p> <p>4. While it is true that a complainant is not entitled to any relief after a decree pro confesso, except such as is fairly embraced in the allegations and prayers-of his bill, yet when a bill is for a general accounting, and prays for a general investigation of all the transactions between the parties, every item fairly embraced in those transactions is properly considered as being within the scope of the bill, notwithstanding such items may not have been specifically mentioned in the bill.</p>