Case ID: sarat-ch-sent_3/html/0086-07.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Wallis v. Nathaniel P. Tallmadge et al.
    
    II. W. Warner, for complainant; M. Porter, for the defendant.
    
      Practice as t<s putting in pletf after defendun* is in contempt for want of an answer.
   In this case the chancellor decided that a plea is a special answer, and may be put in upon payment of costs of a contempt for not answering, after service of the ordinary or first attachment to compel an answer. But that after a contempt duly prosecuted to an attachment with proclamations returned, no plea, or demurrer will be received except upon motion in court on an affidavit showing a sufficient excuse, in addition to the payment of the costs of the contempt. That a defendant cannot purge his contempt for not answering, in any stage of the proceedings, after an attachment has been issued* by putting in a demurrer to the whole or any part of the bill. That he must, therefore, even upon a common otlachment* either plead or answer to the whole bill, unless the court, upon special motion for that purpose, shall see fit to give him leave to demur.

.Application to take the pica from the file denied; and the application to discharge the defendant from the attachment granted, on payment of costs, within ten days after service of taxed bill.