Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity, 1804

Douglass v. Evans and Wheaton

Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity · Decided November 6, 1804 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic><footnote_reference>[fn3]</footnote_reference> <footnote_body><footnote_number>[fn3]</footnote_number> White and Campbell, J. J.; Overton, J. absent.</footnote_body>

1 Tenn. 82

Counsel

It was moved by WHITESIDE and STEWART, for the plaintiff, that a decree should be passed agreeably to the prayer of the bill, and the facts stated. Counsel for the defendant objected.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam. *

The case in 2. P. W. 556 clearly shews what is the practice in England. It is the most modern authority. The law as laid down in that case, shews that when a bill is taken pro confesso no proof is necessary, the bill being taken as true by the court. (2) Our statutes have adopted the phraseology of the english law, it ought therefore to have the same import here as there. A defendant by suffering judgment by default at law admits something to be due. * If the action be founded on a specialty, bill or note, it may be necessary to produce them at the trial, but no other proof is necessary. (1)

Where damages are uncertain, it becomes absolutely necessary, that a jury should intervene, to say what has been sustained, otherwise it cannot appear to the court.

The act of 1801 does not apply to this case because the order was made before the passage of the act—The act may prescribe a different rule in future, but it cannot affect that which was past.

No proof seems necessary, and let the cause be heard accordingly.

White and Campbell, J.—Overton, J. absent.

(2)

2Contra 4 Hen & Mun 476.

See 3 John 58 65 Hard Rep. 45.

(1)

Selwyn's N. P. 388.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.