Hurd v. Everett
New York Court of Chancery
This was a petition for a rehearing, on exceptions to master’s report, disallowing exceptions to third answer of defendant to the amended cross-bill.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—The amendments to a bill, when allowed, are always considered as incorporated in, and as forming part of the original bill. They have reference to the time of filing the bill, and the defendant cannot, by any amendment, be called upon to answer any thing which has occurred since that time. Considering the amended bill in this cause as an entirety, and as if the defendant was now for the first time called upon to answer it, the prayer introduced by the last amendment is perfectly senseless, and is *125not supported by any thing contained in the bill. It presents the strange…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Western M. & M. Co. v. Virginia Cannel Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Cole v. WellsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Scharfenburg v. BishopSupreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Smith v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Carey v. HillhouseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.