
    Cornelius Oakley v. Edward O’Neill et al.
    A decree pro confesso may be taken at any time, after the time limited for the defendant to plead, answer or demur, has expired. It may be taken without notice, and as of course, unless it appear that some prejudice will thereby accrue to the adverse party.
    The object of the bill in this cause was to avoid a conveyance as fraudulent; it also piayed an injunction. At January tern), 1839, an order was made upon Daniel O’Neill, an absent defendant, to appear, &c., at April term, also the usual older for publication. Two of the defendants answered the bill. Daniel O’Neill having failed to appear, Mr. A. iS. Pennington, now, upon proof of publication of the rule of January, 1839, moved for a decree pro confesso against him.
    
      E. B. D. Ogden, contra,
    objected, that the complainant ought to have applied for this decree at April term, 1839. and, having failed so to do, he is not entitled to the decree ae of course, nor without previous notice to the adverse party. This is the rule at law.
   The Chancellor.

The rule contended for by (he defendants’ counsel does not prevail in equity. The complainant is entitled to his decree, at any time after tlie rule to appear, &c. has expired, and it. will be granted as of course unless it appear that some prejudice will accrue to the adverse party.

Motion granted.  