Taylor v. Titus
New York Court of Chancery
The complainant had given a bond and mortgage to Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, two of the defendants; and after-wards sold the mortgaged property to the defendant Francis Graham, subject to such mortgage. The bill was filed to compel the defendants Titus and Willets to foreclose their said mortgage or to release and discharge the from liability or that the defendant Francis Graham might be ordered and decreed to pay off and discharge the' bond and mortgage.
Read the full summary
The complainant had given a bond and mortgage to Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, two of the defendants; and after-wards sold the mortgaged property to the defendant Francis Graham, subject to such mortgage. The bill was filed to compel the defendants Titus and Willets to foreclose their said mortgage or to release and discharge the from liability or that the defendant Francis Graham might be ordered and decreed to pay off and discharge the' bond and mortgage. A petition was now presented by Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, showing that the defendant Graham had (since the •filing of the bill)…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
It is not the practice to allow matter which has arisen after the filing of the original answer to come in under a supplemental answer. In cases where something has been overlooked or inadvertently left out the court, upon proper affidavits and on good cause shown, will give leave to a defendant to file a supplemental or further answer, instead of adding by amendment.
*136But here there is new matter which has arisen since the fi« ling of the original answer. In such a case the defendant cannot set it up in a supplemental answer: he should file a bill in the nature of a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Pearson v. DarringtonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1858
- Pue v. PueHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1848
- Burdell v. BurdellNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Banque Franco-Egyptienne v. BrownU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885