Case Name: Taylor v. Titus and others
Court: New York Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1833-10-14
Citations: 2 Edw. Ch. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor v. Titus and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Edwards' Chancery Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Taylor v. Titus and others.
October 14. 1833.
A defendant is not allowed to file a supplemental answer for the purpose of setting up an important fact which has arisen since the filing of the original answer. He should file a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill.
The complainant had given a bond and mortgage to Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, two of the defendants; and after-wards sold the mortgaged property to the defendant Francis Graham, subject to such mortgage. The bill was filed to compel the defendants Titus and Willets to foreclose their said mortgage or to release and discharge the from liability or that the defendant Francis Graham might be ordered and decreed to pay off and discharge the' bond and mortgage.
A petition was now presented by Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, showing that the defendant Graham had (since the •filing of the bill) paid off the mortgage; and praying for leave to put in a further and supplemental answer to the bill of complaint, setting forth the payment, satisfaction and extinguishment of .the mortgage, with all attending circumstances.
Mr. C. O’ Connor, for the motion.
Mr. F. Griffin, for the complainant.

Opinion:
The Vice-Chancellor:
It is not the practice to allow matter which has arisen after the filing of the original answer to come in under a supplemental answer. In cases where something has been overlooked or inadvertently left out the court, upon proper affidavits and on good cause shown, will give leave to a defendant to file a supplemental or further answer, instead of adding by amendment.
But here there is new matter which has arisen since the fi« ling of the original answer. In such a case the defendant cannot set it up in a supplemental answer: he should file a bill in the nature of a supplemental cross bill. The practice is laid down in Mitf. Pl. p 72.98. (last English and Amer. ed.)
Perhaps the complainant can be brought to admit at the hearing the fact now wished to be set up in a supplemental answer. If not, these defendants must adopt the other eoprse.