Mills v. Pittman
New York Court of Chancery
This wasu petition presented by the complainants, stating that the answer of the defendant had been put in, and that they were anxious to bring the cause to a hearing upon bill and answer, but it was necessary for them to prove the issuing and return of an execution of which the defendant in his answer denied all knowledge; and they asked leave to prove it at the hearing without filing a replication.
Read the full summary
This wasu petition presented by the complainants, stating that the answer of the defendant had been put in, and that they were anxious to bring the cause to a hearing upon bill and answer, but it was necessary for them to prove the issuing and return of an execution of which the defendant in his answer denied all knowledge; and they asked leave to prove it at the hearing without filing a replication. They also asked that the defendant should be compelled to collect a debt due him from a third person, and pay the amount into court, or that they might do it in his name.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor :—If the complainants wish to prove any fact in the bill not admitted in the answer, they should file a replication, and give the defendant an opportunity to be heard on the question of the existence of the fact. If it is a mere exemplication of a record which proves itself, it may be sufficient to give notice to the defendant that it is to be used on the hearing, which will enable him to examine witnesses to explain or rebut the effect thereof, if it can be explained. The debtor whose debt will become due pending the litigation cannot safely pay it. to either of the parties…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ruhlig v. WiegertMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
- Taylor v. CarpenterNew York Court of Chancery · 1846