Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Court to take testimony or depositions, or before a master in chancery appointed by a Circuit Court, or before a judge of a court of a State or Territory;" or before a notary public, when acting within the limits of their respective jurisdictions.12 An answer can be verified without the United States before commissioners appointed for that purpose; 13 or probably before any secretary of legation or consular officer at the post, port, place, or within the limits of his legation, consulate, or commercial agency. The following form of oath or affirmation is given by Daniell in his valuable work on Chancery Practice: "You swear, or solemnly affirm, that what is contained in this your answer (or plea and answer), as far as concerns your own act and deed, is true to your own knowledge, and that what relates to the act and deed of any other person or persons, you believe to be true." When sworn to in a foreign country, it seems that it must be "administered in the most solemn form observed by the laws and usages" of that country.16 Every alteration and interlineation in the answer should be authenticated by the initials of the officer who administers "the oath." When the verification of an answer is in the form of an affidavit, the name of the defendant making it must be subscribed at the foot of the affidavit. When in the form of a certificate of the officer administering the oath, the defendant's name should be subscribed at the foot of the answer.17

99 15

§ 152. Motions to take answers off the file.- When an answer is in any respect irregular, or is filed by a person not named as a defendant in the bill,2 or is filed too late, it may upon the plaintiff's motion be taken off the file. This may also be done when the paper purporting to be an answer is so evasive that it is in fact no answer. If it is taken off the file for an error in form, the court may allow the same paper to

12 Rule 59; L. 1876, ch. 304.

13 Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335. 14 U. S. R. S., § 1750. But see Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335.

152 Daniell's Ch. Pr., ch. 15, § 2, p. 270; Story's Eq. Pl., § 872, note 4. 16 Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335. 17 Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am. ed.) 743; Hathaway v. Scott, 11 Paige

[blocks in formation]

be corrected, and then filed anew." By setting the cause down for a rehearing upon bill and answer, or by filing exceptions or the general replication, such a defect would be waived. A failure to enter an order taking a bill as confessed, does not authorize the filing of an answer after the prescribed time."7

$153. Exceptions for insufficiency. After an answer is filed on any rule-day, the plaintiff is allowed until the next rule-day to file in the clerk's office exceptions thereto for insufficiency, and no longer, unless a longer time is allowed for the purpose, upon cause shown to the court or a judge thereof; and if no exceptions are filed thereto within that period, the answer is deemed and taken to be sufficient. The time may, however, under extraordinary circumstances, be abridged by the court. The court may, to avoid delay, allow the bill to be amended, and exceptions to be filed at the same time to the answer to the original bill; requiring the defendant to at once answer the amended bill and the exceptions. Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency can be filed after exceptions for impertinence have been filed and disposed of. It seems that, if a plea is ordered to stand for an answer, without leave to except being granted in the order, no exception for insufficiency can be taken to so much of the answer as is covered by the plea; and that where an answer is accompanied by a demurrer or plea to the discovery, and the complainant excepts to the answer before the other pleading has been disposed of, he thereby admits the latter to be good, and, if set down for argument, it may be stricken off the calendar. In the latter case leave to withdraw the exceptions may be given. No exceptions for insufficiency can be filed to the answer of an infant or other person under a disability. It has been held that

5

5 Bailey W. M. Co. v. Young, 12 Blatchf. 199.

"Fulton Bank v. Beach, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 307; Glassington v. Thwaites, 2 Russ. 458, 461.

Allen v. Mayor, 7 Fed. R. 483. § 153. Rule 61.

2 Read v. Consequa, 4 Wash. 335. Kittridge v. Claremont Bank, 3 Story, 590.

5 Sellon v. Lewen, 3 P. Wms. 239. "Brownell v. Curtis, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 210, 211; Mitf. Pl., ch. 2, § 2, part 3. See, however, Darnell v. Reyny, 1 Vern. 344.

7 Boyd v. Mills, 13 Ves. 85.

8 Copeland v. Wheeler, 4 Brown, Ch. C. 256; Lucas v. Lucas, 13 Ves. 274; Micklethwaite v. Atkinson, 1 Coll. 173; Daniell's Ch. Pr. (5th Am.

4 Patriotic Bank v. Bank of Wash- ed.) 169. ington, 5 Cranch, C. C. 602.

exceptions will lie for insufficiency, and discovery may be required although an answer under oath is waived. After exceptions for insufficiency have been filed, no new exceptions can regularly be added; 10 but leave to amend those on file may under special circumstances be obtained." When defendants answer separately, separate exceptions should be filed to each answer. Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency must be in writing, and signed by counsel. It seems that they must specify that the answer excepted to is an answer to the bill.15 They should state the charges in the bill and the interrogatory applicable thereto, to which the exceptionable part of the answer should be addressed, and then state the terms of that part of the answer verbatim, so that the court, without searching the bill and answer throughout, may at once perceive the ground of the exception, and ascertain its sufficiency. An exception to an answer, "because, in stating in the said answer what he has been informed of by the said Byam, he does not say whether he actually believes the same to be true," was said to be irregular in form." Such an objection, or any irregularity in the form of an exception for insufficiency, can be raised by a motion to take the exception off the file.18 By setting the exception down for a hearing, an objection for irregularity is waived.19 Where exceptions have been filed to an answer for insufficiency, within the period prescribed, if the defendant do not submit to the same and file an amended answer on the next succeeding rule-day, the plaintiff should forthwith set them down for a hearing on the next succeeding

9 Uhlmann v. Amholt & S. B. Co., 41 Fed. R. 369; Colgate v. Compagnie Francaise, 23 Fed. R. 82. But see United States v. McLaughlin, 24 Fed. R. 823; McCormick v. Chamberlin, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 543; Sheppard v. Akers, 1 Tenn. Ch. 326.

16

13 Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 296; Yates v. Hardy, Jacob, 223; Woods v. Morrell, 1 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 103.

14 Yates v. Hardy, Jacob, 223. 15 Earl of Lichfield v. Bond, 5 Beav. 513.

16 Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 298, 303;

10 Partridge v. Haycraft, 11 Ves. Bower-Barff R. I. Co. v. Wells R. L. 570, 575.

11 Dolder v. Bank of England, 10 Ves. 284; Bancroft v. Wentworth, 10 Vest. 285 n.; Northcote v. Northcote, 1 Dick. 22.

12 Sydolph v. Monkston, 2 Dick. 609.

Co., 43 Fed. R. 391.

17 Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 298, 303. 18 Yates v. Hardy, Jacob, 223; Williams v. Davies, 1 Sim. & S. 426.

19 Brooks v. Byam, 1 Story, 298, 303.

rule-day thereafter, before a judge of the court, and should enter, as of course, in the order-book an order for that purpose; and if he do not so set down the same for a hearing, the exceptions are deemed abandoned, and the answer deemed sufficient; but the court, or any judge thereof, may, for good cause shown, enlarge the time for filing exceptions or for answering the same, in his discretion, upon such terms as he may deem reasonable.20 It has been said that to refer such exceptions to a master on a day not a rule-day "is to do what is not authorized by the rules, and, unless affirmed or cured by some subsequent action of the court, is a nullity."" If, at the hearing, the exceptions are allowed, the defendant is bound to put in a full and complete answer thereto on the next succeeding ruleday; otherwise the plaintiff will, as of course, be entitled to take the bill, so far as the matter of such exceptions is concerned, as confessed, or, at his election, he may have a writ of attachment to compel the defendant to make a better answer to the matter of the exceptions; and the defendant, when he is in custody upon such writ, cannot be discharged therefrom but by an order of the court, or of a judge thereof, upon his putting in such answer, and complying with such other terms as the court or judge may direct. If, upon argument, the plaintiff's exceptions are overruled, or the answer adjudged insufficient, the prevailing party is entitled to all the costs thereby occasioned, unless otherwise directed by the court, or the judge thereof, at the hearing upon the exceptions. An exception for insufficiency may be allowed in part and overruled in part.24 Where an exception for insufficiency was sustained and a further answer put in, which the plaintiff deemed still insufficient, by the former English practice he had three weeks wherein to refer the same to a master upon the old exceptions; otherwise the further answer was deemed sufficient.25 If the further answer was found insufficient, the defendant was required to put in a third answer; and if that too was found insufficient, he was committed to the Fleet, and examined upon interrogato

20 Rule 63.

23

24 E. I. Co. v. Campbell, 1 Ves. Sen. 21 La Vega v. Lapsley, 1 Woods, 428, 247; Hoffmann v. Fostill, L. R. 4 Ch. 432, Woods, J. App. 673.

22 Rule 64.

23 Rule 65.

25 Smith's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. 1836), 285.

ries.26 When an order was obtained after answer, allowing the plaintiff to amend his bill, and requiring the defendant to answer the amendments and the exceptions to the answer to the original bill together; upon such answer the plaintiff could only file new exceptions for a failure to fully answer the amendments.27 A further answer is in every respect similar, and is considered a part of the original answer. If, therefore, it repeats any matter contained in a former answer, the repetition, unless it varies the defense in point of substance, or is otherwise necessary, is considered as impertinent.28 The criterion of the materiality of an interrogatory is not whether an affirmative answer will prove the bill, but whether it will tend to prove the bill.29

§ 154. Supplemental answers.- A supplemental answer is filed to bring to the attention of the court some fact which was not inserted in the original answer through mistake or ignorance,' or which has occurred subsequently to the filing of the same. They can only be filed by leave of the court, which may impose terms upon the applicant. The rules regulating supplemental answers of the former class will be found in the chapter upon Amendments. Those of the second class have been little considered in the books. Their functions may also be performed by cross-bills. It is too late after answer and decree to object to the regularity of a proceeding in which facts were set up by petition when a cross-bill or supplemental answer would have been the proper practice.5

§ 155. Disclaimers. A disclaimer is a pleading by which the defendant renounces all claim to property which the plaintiff seeks in his bill to obtain. It is said that it is distinct in

26 Smith's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. 1836), 285, 286.

27 Partridge v. Haycraft, 11 Ves. 570, 581; Smith's Ch. Pr. (2d ed. 1836), 286.

28 Story's Eq. Pl., § 868. See Gier v. Gregg, 4 McLean, 203.

29 Uhlmann v. Amholt & S. B. Co., 41 Fed. R. 369. See supra, § 82.

§ 154. Smith v. Babcock, 3 Sumner, 583; Williams v. Gibbes, 20 How. 535; Caster v. Wood, 1 Baldw. 289; Suydam v. Truesdale, 6 McLean, 459.

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »