Doe v. Roe

Superior Court of Delaware

Doe v. Roe

39 A. 464, 17 Del. 14, 1 Penne. 14, 1897 Del. LEXIS 24

DecidedOctober 2, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A. 464 (Doe v. Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Roe, 39 A. 464, 17 Del. 14, 1 Penne. 14, 1897 Del. LEXIS 24 (Del. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Dorp, C. J:—

In this case, Mr. Biggs, attorney for defendants, has entered his name on the appearance docket as attorney —opposite the names of defendants—but has not entered into the consent rule, laid any pretentions or taken any defence as to any particular property.

Mr. Churchman, attorney for plaintiff, moves for judgment because of such failure on the part of defendant to enter into the consent rule and lay pretentions.

[15]*15We do not think judgment should be rendered, but order the defendant to enter into the consent rule at once, and to lay his pretentions by the first rule day in vacation.

The correct procedure is, for the attorney for the defendant to appear, upon filing with the Prothonotary a written paper entering into the consent rule, specifying therein, by general description, for what premises he intends to defend; and shall consent in such rule to confess upon the trial, as well as lease, entry and ouster, that the defendant (if he defends as tenant, or in case he defends as landlord then his tenant), was at the time of the service of the declaration, in possession of such premises in pursuance of Par. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dorp, C. J:—

In this case, Mr. Biggs, attorney for defendants, has entered his name on the appearance docket as attorney —opposite the names of defendants—but has not entered into the consent rule, laid any pretentions or taken any defence as to any particular property.

Mr. Churchman, attorney for plaintiff, moves for judgment because of such failure on the part of defendant to enter into the consent rule and lay pretentions.

[15]*15We do not think judgment should be rendered, but order the defendant to enter into the consent rule at once, and to lay his pretentions by the first rule day in vacation.

The correct procedure is, for the attorney for the defendant to appear, upon filing with the Prothonotary a written paper entering into the consent rule, specifying therein, by general description, for what premises he intends to defend; and shall consent in such rule to confess upon the trial, as well as lease, entry and ouster, that the defendant (if he defends as tenant, or in case he defends as landlord then his tenant), was at the time of the service of the declaration, in possession of such premises in pursuance of Par. 2, Rule 9, Rules of Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A. 464, 17 Del. 14, 1 Penne. 14, 1897 Del. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-roe-delsuperct-1897.