Supreme Court of the United States, 1872

Frow v. De La Vega

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 18, 1872 · Bradley

82 U.S. 552; 21 L. Ed. 60; 15 Wall. 552; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1284 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. P. Phillips, for the appellant, , Mr. T. J. Durant,contra,

Cases that cite this one

477 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Estate of Otto v. Physicians Insurance Co. of Wisconsin, Inc. (Wis. 2008)
All Points Capital Corp. v. Meyer (In re Meyer) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 2007)
State of Fla. v. COUNTRYWIDE TRUCK INS. AGCY. (Neb. 1999)
Hudson v. Ashley (D.C. 1980)
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd. (7th Cir. 1980)
J.B., as legal guardian and personal representative of E.B., an adult with a disability v. MKBS, LLC d/b/a Metro Taxi, Inc. a/k/a Metro Transportation Planning and Solution Group and Jesus Manuel Ortiz. (Colo. 2026)
State ex rel. Department of Insurance v. Countrywide Truck Insurance Agency (Neb. 1999)
In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1979)
Jefferson v. Briner, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2006)
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Rio Algom Ltd. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1979)
Shanghai Automation Instrument Co., Ltd. v. Kuei (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2001)
General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2014)
Days Inns Acquisition Corp. v. Hutchinson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Harlow v. Voyager Communications V (N.C. 1998)
Grier ex rel. Brown v. Guy (N.C. Ct. App. 2012)
United States v. All Assets Held in Account No. XXXXXXXX (D.C. Cir. 2018)
Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc. (Md. 1995)
Charles Carter v. District of Columbia, Maurice Turner, Chief, Metropolitan Police Department Charles Carter v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1986)
McKee v. United Salt Corp. (N.M. Ct. App. 1980)
United States ex rel. Costner v. United States (8th Cir. 2003)
Davis v. Immediate Medical Services, Inc. (Ohio 1997)
Farzetta v. Turner & Newall, Ltd. (3d Cir. 1986)
J.B. v. MKBS, LLC (Colo. App. 2024)
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. ILS GENERAL CONTRACTORS (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2005)
Phoenix Renovation Corp. v. Gulf Coast Software, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2000)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*554 Mr. Justice BRADLEY

delivered the opinion of the court.

If the court in such a case as this can lawfully make a final decree against one defendant separately, on the merits, while the cause was proceeding undetermined against the others, then this absurdity might follow: there might be one decree of the court sustaining the charge of joint fraud committed by the defendants; and another decree disaffirming the said charge, and declaring it to be entirely unfounded, and dismissing the complainant’s bill. And such an incongruity, it seems, did actually occur in this case. Such a state of things is unseemly and absurd, as well as unauthorized by law.

The true mode of proceeding where a bill makes a joint charge against several defendants, and one of them makes default, is simply to enter a default and a formal decree pro confesso against him, and proceed with the cause upon the answers of the other defendants. The defaulting defendant has merely lost his standing in court. He will not be entitled to service of notices in the cause, nor to appear in it in any way. He can adduce no evidence, he cannot be heard at the final hearing. But if the suit should be decided against the complainant on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all the defendants alike — the defaulter as well as.the others. If it be decided in the complainant’s favor, he will then be entitled to a final decree against all. But a final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and illegal. This was so expressly decided by the New York Court of Errors, in the case of Clason v. Morris. * Spencer, J., says: “It would be unreasonable to hold, that because one defendant had made default, the plaintiff should have a decree even against him, where the court is satisfied from the proofs offered by the other, that in fact the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree.” †

Irregularities, if any occurred in the proceedings after *555 the decree complained of, are not now before us for adjudication.

Decree reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings,

In conformity with this opinion.

10 Johnson, 524.

†

See 1 Hoffman’s Chancery Practice, 554.

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