Case ID: edw-ch_2/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Vice-Chancellor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson v. Edwards and others.
    
      March 8th. 1836.
    Where a bill is amended after appearance, it is necessary to enter afresh order that the party answer the bill as amended and notice is'to be given of the same with a copy of the amended bill. It cannot, in such a case, be taken p. c. upon an order to answer entered prior to the amendment.
    Appearances had been entered; copies of bills served an(j orders to answer entered; then, amendments, prior to answers coming in, were made, and copies served : but no new order to answer was entered and the bill was taken as confessed upon the original orders to answer.
   The Vice-Chancellor

said, that the taking the bill pro confesso upon the original order was irregular. Where a bill is amended before answer and after appearance, it is necessary to enter a new order to answer the bill as amended, and the complainant, in such a case, cannot take advantage of the original order. The practice is properly laid down by Mr. Hoffman in his Practice, v. 1, p. 297.

Note.—There were pecularities in the present case which caused the court not to give costs.