Case Name: James Phelps and George Spofford v. Edward Curtis et al.
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1841-01
Citations: 2 N.J. Eq. 387
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Phelps and George Spofford v. Edward Curtis et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 387–387

Head Matter:
James Phelps and George Spofford v. Edward Curtis et al.
'A complainant will not bo ordered to answer interrogatories which are not filed within fifteen days after filing the answer, unless a sufficient reason be disclosed to excuse the neglect on the part of the defendant to file his interrogatories pursuant to the rale of the court.
Vandervoort, on behalf of Edward Curtis, one of the defendants,
applied for an order upon the complainants to answer certain interrogatories exhibited by the defendant. In support of the motion, lie read an affidavit of the defendant, stating that the answers to the interrogatories were essential to his defence in the cause.
E. B. D. Ogden, contra.
The answer in this cause was filed in July last. The testimony has been closed, and the cause is set down for final hearing at the present term. The interrogatories were not filed until since -the first day of January instant. The rule requires that the interrogatories should be filed within fifteen days after filing the answer. Rules, xii. s. 1.

Opinion:
The Chancellor.
The motion must be denied. The affidavit discloses no sufficient excuse for the neglect, on the part of the defendant, to file his interrogatories pursuant to the rule of court.
Motion denied.