Case Name: Daniel S. Griswold v. William Inman
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-11-15
Citations: 1 Hopk. Ch. 86
Docket Number: 
Parties: Daniel S. Griswold v. William Inman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hopkins' Chancery Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 86–86

Head Matter:
Daniel S. Griswold v. William Inman.
1823. Nov. 15.
The filing of a replication, after notice given of motion to dismiss bill for want thereof, is good cause against the motion ; but it will only be allowed on payment of costs.
Mr. Palmer moved to dismiss the bill, for want of a replication to the answei-, which had been filed more than three weeks_
Mr. Warner showed for cause, that a replication was now filed, since notice of this motion.
After some inquiry at the bar, and hearing a decision of the late chancellor Kent,

Opinion:
The Court
said, that the filing of the replication was good cause against the motion; the costs of which, however, must be paid by the complainant.