- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
BLACK ET AL., EXRS. v. HOFFMAN ET AL
Factual and Procedural Background
This case is an appeal by defendants from a final decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County dismissing exceptions to a decree pro confesso. The bill was one for discovery seeking inspection of an alleged contract, and the decree pro confesso was entered against the defendants for default of appearance and answer. The opinion notes that the detailed facts are reviewed in a preceding opinion (No. 196, March Term, 1932) and are not restated here.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a decree pro confesso is properly entered on a bill of discovery for inspection of an alleged contract when there is no averment that it is impossible to produce the challenged document.
- Whether the procedures leading to the final decree complied with the applicable Equity Rules (specifically Equity Rules 50 and 51).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- No inspection was necessary or could be required by a decree pro confesso until petitioners in the main action knew whether they would be compelled to further litigate.
- A decree pro confesso to produce a paper could, in numerous circumstances, be unjust or impossible (examples suggested: the contract might be lost or destroyed; it might not be in appellants' possession or in the possession of persons who could be compelled to deliver it except by subpoena or other process).
Appellee's Arguments
- The procedure leading up to the entry of the final decree was in compliance with the rules of court.
- It is nowhere alleged in the record that it is impossible to produce the contract requested.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the decree pro confesso was entered against defendants in default of appearance and answer. The court below had found the bill for discovery to be proper in form and content, that the processes and procedures culminating in the final decree were complete and regular, and that defendants' exceptions should be overruled and dismissed. The Supreme Court observed that the lower court's conclusion complied with Equity Rules 50 and 51. The court addressed appellants' hypothetical arguments about circumstances that might make production impossible, stating that nowhere in the record is there any averment that those circumstances have in fact occurred. The opinion further explained that if production is truly impossible, the court below has power under Equity Rule No. 51 to open the final decree and permit the defendants to answer upon cause shown and on such terms as the court deems fit.
Holding and Implications
The decree of the court below is affirmed.
Direct effect: the final decree dismissing exceptions to the decree pro confesso is affirmed at appellants' cost. The court also indicated that the lower court retains authority under Equity Rule No. 51 to open the final decree and allow defendants to answer if it is shown that production of the document is impossible, subject to terms as to trial, continuance, and costs. The opinion does not announce any new precedent beyond applying the cited Equity Rules to the record.
Equity — Decree pro confesso — Bill of discovery — No averment of impossibility of producing document.
A decree pro confesso in default of appearance and answer is properly entered on a bill of discovery by respondents for inspection of an alleged contract, specific performance of which has been asked by petitioners, where there is no averment that it is impossible to produce the challenged document.
Submitted September 28, 1932.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE MAXEY, November 28, 1932:
This is an appeal from a decree in equity taken pro confesso against the defendants in default of appearance and answer. The facts are reviewed in the preceding opinion which was indexed in the court below as No. 196, March Term, 1932. Therefore it is not necessary to review the facts in this opinion. The court below held that the bill for discovery was a proper method and procedure and in proper form and contained the necessary averments, that the processes and procedure upon the bill ending with the final decree were complete and regular and that the defendants' exceptions to the final decree should be overruled and dismissed.
This conclusion on the part of the court below is in accordance with Equity Rules 50 and 51. In the brief for appellants it is stated "there might and very well could be numerous circumstances under which a decree pro confesso to produce a paper would be unjust and impossible; the contract might be lost or destroyed; it might not be in the possession of the appellants, or in the possession of persons who would deliver it to the appellants or who could be made to deliver except by subpœna or some other process of court."
Nowhere in the record is there any averment that the things which appellants argue might and could happen have happened. If it is impossible to produce the challenged document, the court below has power, under Equity Rule No. 51, to open the final decree which it entered and to permit defendants below (that is, appellants here) to answer over, upon cause shown, and on such terms and conditions as to trial, continuance and costs as to the court shall seem meet.
The decree is affirmed at appellants' cost.
Alert