Cook v. Bee
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
— The defendant Bee moved the court to be permitted to amend Ms answer so as to rely upon the statute of frauds as a defence. The court declined to entertain the motion unless accompanied with an affidavit showing a sufficient reason why the defence was not inserted in the original answer. Bowen v. Cross, 4 Johns. Ch. 375; Thomas v. Doub, 1 Md. 252; Graham v. Skinner, 4 Jones Eq. 94; McKim v. Thompson, 1 Bland, 150. The defendant’s solicitor thereupon filed his own affidavit. The affidavit required in such cases is obviously the affidavit of the defendant, although it may, if…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cozine v. Graham & BleekerNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
- Smith v. BabcockU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1839
- Bowen v. CrossNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
- Thomas v. DoubCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1851
- Taylor v. DoddIndiana Supreme Court · 1854
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.