Shephard v. Merril
New York Court of Chancery
PETITION of plaintiff,' stating the gravamen intended to be set forth in the original bill. That -Upon the hearing the Chancellor denied relief to the plaintiff upon the bill as ¡framed; but granted; a. rehearing. That the mistake in the agreement set forthdn the bill was not stated, and praying for leave to amend the bill,; so as to set forth the mistake, or. to - exhitiifc a- supplemental bill for tttie purpose:
1Opinion of the Court
The- Chancellor.
It is a settled rule of practice, that a bill ;defective, in its charges cannot'be amended after publication; and cause set down; and especially aftér hearing, by adding- newchárges; Such defects can only be supplied by a supplemental'bill.; (Goodwin v. Goodwin, 3 Atk. 370, Jones v. Jones, 3 Atk. 111. Vide, also, 3 Atk. 133. Cooper's Eq. Pl. 73. 333, 334. Mwland's Pr. 82.) Leave to filea- supplemental .bill in this case’ is granted;-on paying to the defendants their costs -subsequentto the rule for passing publication.(a.)) Vide Beekman v. Waters, ante. p. 410.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gillett v. HallSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
- Thorn v. GermandNew York Court of Chancery · 1820