Case Name: PATRIOTIC BANK v. BANK OF WASHINGTON
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1839-11
Citations: 18 F. Cas. 1303
Docket Number: 
Parties: PATRIOTIC BANK v. BANK OF WASHINGTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 18
Pages: 1303–1303

Head Matter:
Case No. 10,806.
PATRIOTIC BANK v. BANK OF WASHINGTON.
[5 Cranch, C. C. 602.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1839.
Pleading in Equity —Exceptions to Answer— For Impertinence — Time for Filing.
Exceptions to an answer for insufficiency may be filed after exceptions for impertinence.
Bill in equity.
Mr. Bradley, for plaintiff,
excepted to a part of the defendant’s answer, for imperti-nenes.
THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, 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. Coop. Eq. PI. 321.
Mr. Hellen, contra,
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. Prac. 228, 235.
Mr. Bradley, in reply. By the English practice, exceptions for impertinence must be filed and decided before exceptions ■ for insufficiency will be allowed. Harrison refers only to exceptions for insufficiency. Chit. Eq. Dig. 872; Newl. Ch. Prac. 184, 185, 190; Story, Eq. PI. 665, p. 867.

Opinion:
THE COURT,
having sustained the exception for impertinence, ordered the impertinent part to be cancelled, and permitted the plaintiff to file exceptions for insufficiency.