Richardson v. Richardson & Wing
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application on the part of S. Richardson, one of the defendants in this cause, to set aside the replication to his answer, for irregularity. The-complaiuant prosecuted her suit in forma pauperis against the defendant 8. Richardson, upon an (order in the usual form.
Read the full summary
This was an application on the part of S. Richardson, one of the defendants in this cause, to set aside the replication to his answer, for irregularity. The-complaiuant prosecuted her suit in forma pauperis against the defendant 8. Richardson, upon an (order in the usual form. On the coming in of his answer, the complainant’s solicitor entered an order of course with the register, under the 43d rule of the court, allowing her to amend her bill as she should be advised, upon the payment of the costs of the further answer if such an answer should be put in. Several material amendments were then…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The replication in this case was irregular, and must be taken off the files of the court. The 45th rule declares that where the complainant amends after answer, the defendant shall have the same time to answer, after such amendment, if a further answer is necessary, as he originally had. Where the complainant, as in (his case, waives the necessity of a further answer, if the defendant deems it essential to his defence to answer the amendments, he has the right to do so. 'And unless the defendant elects to abide by his former answer within that time, the complainant must wait…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Nelson v. EatonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Davis v. DavisMississippi Supreme Court · 1885
- Seay v. FergusonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1873
- Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861
- Horton v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.