Hughes v. Bloomer
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal by the complainants from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, allowing the defendant A. Birkbeck, to file a supplemental answer. The bill was filed by a judgment creditor of E. Bloomer, after the return of an execution unsatisfied, to reach property of the latter alleged to have been fraudulently assigned to the defendant Moon ; and Birkbeck and Hegeman were made defendants as subsequent assignees of Moon.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal by the complainants from an order of the vice chancellor of the first circuit, allowing the defendant A. Birkbeck, to file a supplemental answer. The bill was filed by a judgment creditor of E. Bloomer, after the return of an execution unsatisfied, to reach property of the latter alleged to have been fraudulently assigned to the defendant Moon ; and Birkbeck and Hegeman were made defendants as subsequent assignees of Moon. Hegeman, Moon and Birkbeck put in a joint and several answer, in which it was admitted, among other things, that the property originally assigned by…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The practice of amending the answer of a defendant, which prevailed previous to the time of Lord Thurlow, has been discontinued in this country, as well as in England. The modern practice is, upon a proper case shown to the court, to permit the defendant to file a supplemental answer; thus giving the complainant the benefit of the original answer, with the explanations or denials contained in the supplemental answer. Under such an answer if the defendant, by mistake or misapprehension of the facts of the case, or of his rights, has made an admission in his original answer,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Howe v. RussellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1853
- Bolling's Ex'or v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1857