Case ID: dc_5/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Patriotic Bank v. Bank of Washington.
    Exceptions, to an answer, for insufficiency, may be filed after exceptions for impertinence.
    Bill in equity. Mr. Bradley, for the plaintiffs, excepted to a part of the defendants’ answer, for impertinence.
    The Court (Thruston, J., 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. Cooper’s Eq. 321.
    
      Mr. Mellen, contrá,
    
    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. Pr. 228, 235.
    
      Mr. Bradley, in reply. By the English practice, exceptions for impertinence must be first filed and decided before exceptions for insufficiency will be allowed. Harrison refers only to exceptions for insufficiency. Chitty, Eq. Dig, 872 ; Newland’s Ch. Pr. 184, 185, 190 ; Story’s 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.