Case ID: paige-ch_6/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Chancellor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

New-York Chemical Company vs. Flowers and wife.
    1837. August 1.
    A joint answer of the husband and wife must be sworn to by both, unless the complainant consents to receive such answer upon the oath ofthehusband only.
    This was a bill of forelosure and the defendant Martin Flowers put in an answer sworn to by himself only and not by his wife.
    
      J. Rhoades, for the complainants,
    moved to take the answer off the files for irregularity, and that the bill be taken as confessed for want of a regular answer.
    
      G. C. Goddard, for the defendant,
    opposed the application; and asked for leave to put in anew answer if the one already filed was irregular.
   The Chancellor

decided that a joint answer of the husband and wife must be sworn to by both, unless the complainant consents to receive the answer of both upon the oath of the husband only. And that in this case, as the answer was probably put in merely for delay, the husband not pretending that he had any valid defence, the answer must be taken off the files, and an order to take the bill as confessed must be entered.