Bowen v. Cross
New York Court of Chancery
THE defendant filed his answer on the 13th of December, 1819. In January term, 1820, he moved to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, on the ground that the answer denied the equity of the bill. The motion was overruled.
Read the full summary
THE defendant filed his answer on the 13th of December, 1819. In January term, 1820, he moved to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, on the ground that the answer denied the equity of the bill. The motion was overruled. Cushman, for the defendant, now moved for leave to file a supplementary answer, or affidavit of the solicitor, that an account containing the items, or particular charges of the debt alleged to have been due from Lyman Cross, to this defendant, in June, 1818, was handed to the solicitor at the time of drawing the answer, and that the solicitor omitted to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The former practice in the English Chancery was, that where there was a clear mistake, proper to be corrected, the answer was taken off the file, and a new *376answer put in. But Lord Thurlow adopted a better course, by permitting a supplemental or additional answer to be filed, thereby leaving to the parties the effect of what had been sworn before, with the explanation given by the supplemental answer. The latter is the settled course now pursued in the English Equity Courts, (S Ves. 79. 10 Ves. 285. 401. 1 Wightwick, 32. 3 Price, 83.) and it is the safer and wiser practice. But…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Murray v. CosterCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1822
- Smith v. BabcockU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1839
- Elder's Ex'ors v. HarrisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1882
- Howe v. RussellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1853
- Marsh v. MitchellNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1875
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.