Case ID: paige-ch_5/html/0033-01.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

Taylor and others vs. Bogert.
    Where the jurat to the answer is defective, and the defendant has leave to amend by adding a proper jurat to the answer on file, the amendment is not complete until a copy of the amended jurat is served on the complainant’s solicitor; who has thirty days thereafter to put in his replication.
    A question arose in this cause as to the regularity of the replication filed to the defendant’s answer. The jurat to the answer as erignally filed was defective, and the defendant had subsequently obtained an order permitting the jurat to the answer on file to be amended.
    
      J. J. Lansing, for the complainants, insisted that they had thirty days after the service of a copy of the amended jurat to put in their replication.
    
      J. Rhoades, for the defendant,"contended that the amended jurat referred itself back to the filing of the answer; and that the replication should have been filed within thirty days after the service of the copy of the answer, as originally drawn.
   The Chancellor

decided that the answer was not to be considered perfect until the service of a copy of the jurat, as amended. And that the complainants’ replication being filed within thirty days after such service, it was regular ; as the answer was not to be deemed sufficient until twenty days after notice of such amendment.