Legal Definitions - bill taken pro confesso

A bill taken pro confesso is a historical legal term referring to an order issued by a court, typically a court of equity, when a defendant failed to file a formal response to the plaintiff'scomplaint (historically called a "bill"). In such a situation, the court treated the allegations made by the plaintiff in their complaint as if they had been admitted or "confessed" by the defendant due to their silence. This allowed the court to proceed with a judgment based on the plaintiff's unchallenged claims, without requiring the plaintiff to prove every detail in a full trial.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this historical legal concept:

• Imagine a scenario in the 18th century where a landowner, Mr. Davies, sued his neighbor, Ms. Evans, in a court of equity. Mr. Davies claimed that Ms. Evans had unlawfully diverted a stream that flowed through both their properties, causing damage to his crops. Ms. Evans was properly served with the legal documents but chose not to file any answer or defense with the court within the required timeframe.

  In this situation, the court would issue an order that the "bill be taken pro confesso." This meant that because Ms. Evans failed to respond, the court would treat Mr. Davies's allegations about the stream diversion and the resulting damage as if Ms. Evans had admitted them to be true. The court could then proceed to issue a judgment or order remedies, such as requiring Ms. Evans to restore the stream's flow or pay damages, based on Mr. Davies's uncontested claims.

• Consider a case from the early 19th century where a group of investors filed a "bill" in a court of equity against a trustee, Mr. Henderson, alleging that he had mismanaged funds entrusted to him for a charitable foundation. The investors sought an accounting of the funds and the removal of Mr. Henderson as trustee. Despite receiving the court's summons, Mr. Henderson ignored the proceedings and did not submit any legal response.

  The court would then declare the "bill taken pro confesso." By not answering, Mr. Henderson was deemed to have admitted the investors' accusations of mismanagement. The court could then move forward to order an audit of the foundation's finances and potentially remove Mr. Henderson from his position, relying on the unchallenged facts presented by the investors in their original complaint.