Hall v. Home Building Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On bill, &c., and petition for leave to file supplemental answer. On order to show cause why the defendant Abram Anderson should not be allowed to amend his answer and set up a tender and request for release made subsequent to the filing of his answer.
1Opinion of the Court
Grey, V. C.
(orally).
I think the counsel have diligently examined this case, and I have gone over it myself with care, to see whether or not the petitioner ought to be allowed, under the terms of the agreement, *305and in the present status of the ease, to come in by way of supplemental answer, and, if need be, by cross-bill, to assert his rights. In my view, this is not a case where there is a seeking to amend because of a mistake of law. The cases where an amendment is refused on account of a mistake of law are those where, on the facts existing at the time the answer was filed, the answering…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Goldman South Brunswick v. SternNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
- Bruen v. SpannhakeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1935
- General Leather v. Luggage, No. 49New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
- Hagaman v. FrederickNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
- Simonson v. Z Cranbury AssociatesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997