Stephenson v. Stephenson
New York Court of Chancery
Tins was appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit. At the time of filing the bill in this cause William Stevenson, one of the defendants, was an infant and put in a general answer by his guardian ad litem. After he arrived at the age of twenty-one, upon an affidavit that a special answer would be necessary to protect his rights, he applied to the court for leave to put in a new or further answer or defence to the suit.
Read the full summary
Tins was appeal from a decision of the vice chancellor of the first circuit. At the time of filing the bill in this cause William Stevenson, one of the defendants, was an infant and put in a general answer by his guardian ad litem. After he arrived at the age of twenty-one, upon an affidavit that a special answer would be necessary to protect his rights, he applied to the court for leave to put in a new or further answer or defence to the suit. The vice chancellor gave him permission to file a new answer, or to plead or demur to the bill as he should be advised ; but allowed the complainant…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The appellant could not have made any defence under the answer of T. Stevenson which he could not have made under the general answer put in by his guardian ad litem. The abandonment of the defence by T. Stevenson could not, therefore, in any way alter or *354prejudice the rights of the appellant. But in this stage of the suit, and before he had taken any steps in the cause in his own name after he came of age inconsistent with such a claim, it was a matter of course, upon his showing that a further answer was necessary to protect his rights, to permit the minor who had arrived of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Denholm v. McKayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Ingersoll v. IngersollMississippi Supreme Court · 1868
- Holderby v. HaganWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
- Morse v. HoveyNew York Court of Chancery · 1843