Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Hudson Cason, for Appellants;
Roberts Nelson, for Appellees.
Filed: Apr. 02, 1930
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Appellees, complainants below, filed their bill to foreclose a mortgage, to which appellants, defendants below, demurred; thereupon complainants filed an amendment to their bill complying with the points raised by the demurrer. Subsequently, defendants filed a second demurrer, raising *Page 453 a point of law, not raised by their first demurrer, which was upon motion of complainants stricken and a decree pro confesso entered by the court, upon the ground that the second demurrer raised an object
Summary: Appellees, complainants below, filed their bill to foreclose a mortgage, to which appellants, defendants below, demurred; thereupon complainants filed an amendment to their bill complying with the points raised by the demurrer. Subsequently, defendants filed a second demurrer, raising *Page 453 a point of law, not raised by their first demurrer, which was upon motion of complainants stricken and a decree pro confesso entered by the court, upon the ground that the second demurrer raised an objecti..
More
Although the demurrer was clearly without merit, it was not so frivolous as to justify the summary entry of a decree pro confesso. I think the defendants should have been allowed to answer and that the original ruling of this Court so holding should be adhered to. I therefore dissent from the order of affirmance.
