Judges: BUFORD, J. —
Attorneys: Joseph M. Glickstein, for Appellant;
M. H. Long and Otto H. Wittschen, for Appellee.
Filed: Dec. 01, 1933
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The appeal in this case is from an order vacating a decree constituting a deficiency judgment. The decree was entered on the 13th day of May, 1933, against defendant as to whom decree pro confesso had been duly entered on the 6th day of March, 1933. On the 7th day of July, 1933, notice was served that the defendant, through his counsel, would on the 11th day of July, 1933, at nine-thirty o'clock present a motion seeking to vacate the deficiency decree upon the ground that no notice of the applic
Summary: The appeal in this case is from an order vacating a decree constituting a deficiency judgment. The decree was entered on the 13th day of May, 1933, against defendant as to whom decree pro confesso had been duly entered on the 6th day of March, 1933. On the 7th day of July, 1933, notice was served that the defendant, through his counsel, would on the 11th day of July, 1933, at nine-thirty o'clock present a motion seeking to vacate the deficiency decree upon the ground that no notice of the applica..
More
The matter of granting a deficiency decree rests within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor, and, in order that such discretion should be properly exercised, it is helpful to the chancellor to give each side an opportunity to be heard. In the exercise of this discretion, the chancellor would certainly not be abusing it if he saw fit to grant a defendant a right to be heard, upon timely application, even though such defendant had suffered a decree pro confesso to be entered against him
on the original bill. The bill in this case did not pray for a deficiency decree, nor does the record show that any application for a deficiency decree was ever made to the court. I think the chancellor's order, here appealed from, was not only free from error, but highly commendable.
