Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Edw. Ch. 135

Taylor v. Titus

New York Court of Chancery

Decided October 14, 1833

New York Court of Chancery · decided 1833-10-14

The complainant had given a bond and mortgage to Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, two of the defendants; and after-wards sold the mortgaged property to the defendant Francis Graham, subject to such mortgage. The bill was filed to compel the defendants Titus and Willets to foreclose their said mortgage or to release and discharge the from liability or that the defendant Francis Graham might be ordered and decreed to pay off and discharge the' bond and mortgage.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1858

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1833-10-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Vice-Chancellor:

¶1It is not the practice to allow matter which has arisen after the filing of the original answer to come in under a supplemental answer. In cases where something has been overlooked or inadvertently left out the court, upon proper affidavits and on good cause shown, will give leave to a defendant to file a supplemental or further answer, instead of adding by amendment.

¶2*136But here there is new matter which has arisen since the fi« ling of the original answer. In such a case the defendant cannot set it up in a supplemental answer: he should file a bill in the nature of a supplemental cross bill. The practice is laid down in Mitf. Pl. p 72.98. (last English and Amer. ed.)

¶3Perhaps the complainant can be brought to admit at the hearing the fact now wished to be set up in a supplemental answer. If not, these defendants must adopt the other eoprse.

/2/edwch/135 · .json · Public domain