Hurd v. Everett

New York Court of Chancery

Hurd v. Everett

1 Paige Ch. 124, 1828 N.Y. LEXIS 376, 1828 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10

CourtNew York Court of Chancery

DecidedJune 30, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 1 Paige Ch. 124 (Hurd v. Everett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurd v. Everett, 1 Paige Ch. 124, 1828 N.Y. LEXIS 376, 1828 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10 (N.Y. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor :—The amendments to a bill, when allowed, are always considered as incorporated in, and as forming part of the original bill. They have reference to the time of filing the bill, and the defendant cannot, by any amendment, be called upon to answer any thing which has occurred since that time. Considering the amended bill in this cause as an entirety, and as if the defendant was now for the first time called upon to answer it, the prayer introduced by the last amendment is perfectly senseless, and is [125]*125not supported by any thing contained in the bill. It presents the strange anomaly of a prayer in a bill, that the defendant may be compelled further to answer as to matters which will be contained in his answer, but which are no where referred to in the bill, except in such prayer. The subject matter of the exception relied upon in this case was, therefore, such as the defendant was not bound to answer.

Independent of this informal and impertinent prayer, the subject matter of the bill, as amended, is fully answered.

The petition for a rehearing is dismissed, with costs to be paid by the complainants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Chancellor :—The amendments to a bill, when allowed, are always considered as incorporated in, and as forming part of the original bill. They have reference to the time of filing the bill, and the defendant cannot, by any amendment, be called upon to answer any thing which has occurred since that time. Considering the amended bill in this cause as an entirety, and as if the defendant was now for the first time called upon to answer it, the prayer introduced by the last amendment is perfectly senseless, and is [125]*125not supported by any thing contained in the bill. It presents the strange anomaly of a prayer in a bill, that the defendant may be compelled further to answer as to matters which will be contained in his answer, but which are no where referred to in the bill, except in such prayer. The subject matter of the exception relied upon in this case was, therefore, such as the defendant was not bound to answer.

Independent of this informal and impertinent prayer, the subject matter of the bill, as amended, is fully answered.

The petition for a rehearing is dismissed, with costs to be paid by the complainants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Paige Ch. 124, 1828 N.Y. LEXIS 376, 1828 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurd-v-everett-nychanct-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack