Case ID: f-cas_18/html/1303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 10,806.
    PATRIOTIC BANK v. BANK OF WASHINGTON.
    [5 Cranch, C. C. 602.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Nov. Term, 1839.
    Pleading in Equity —Exceptions to Answer— For Impertinence — Time for Filing.
    Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency may be filed after exceptions for impertinence.
    Bill in equity.
    Mr. Bradley, for plaintiff,
    excepted to a part of the defendant’s answer, for imperti-nenes.
    THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, not sitting,) sustained the exception.
    Mr. Bradley then filed exceptions to the answer for insufficiency; and moved the court for leave to amend his bill. Coop. Eq. PI. 321.
    Mr. Hellen, contra,
    objected that the exceptions should all be filed at once; and that after the court has decided upon exceptions, new exception cannot be permitted. 1 Har. Ch. Prac. 228, 235.
    Mr. Bradley, in reply. By the English practice, exceptions for impertinence must be filed and decided before exceptions ■ for insufficiency will be allowed. Harrison refers only to exceptions for insufficiency. Chit. Eq. Dig. 872; Newl. Ch. Prac. 184, 185, 190; Story, Eq. PI. 665, p. 867.
   THE COURT,

having sustained the exception for impertinence, ordered the impertinent part to be cancelled, and permitted the plaintiff to file exceptions for insufficiency.