McKIM v. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND. 141

plies, or any other circumstances upon which he ought to have stated
the fact otherwise, or that when he swore to his original answer, he
meant to swear in the sense in which he now desires to be at liberty to
swear. (5)

A supplemental answer is only intended to correct the allegations of the
original answer, or to remove from it dangerous admissions, so as to let
in proof in the hearing of the real merits of the case.

An appeal does not lie from a mere interlocutory order, by which nothing
is finally settled between the parties, (c)

The case referred, and a decree upon the award.

It appears, that Marcus Heyland, for the purpose of carrying on
the business of a merchant in the City of Baltimore, went to
* England, and there, in the year 1810, purchased of sundry
persons goods to the amount of about $67,000; and, to secure
the payment for them, drew bills in favor of those from whom he
purchased, on William & John Bell & Co. which they accepted;
that some time after, William Bell died, and John Bell, by a letter
of the 10th November, 1810, informed Heyland, that, in conse-
quence of the death of his partner and other circumstances, his
late firm had become somewhat deranged, and that he had made
over all the amount due by him for those acceptances to Hugh
Thompson of the City of Baltimore, which he was requested to
notice, and to account with Thompson accordingly. In conse-
quence of which, on the 20th of November, 1810, Heyland entered
into an agreement, by which he bound himself to Thompson to the
amount of what he should owe the firm of William & John Bell
& Co., on account of their acceptances on his behalf, or otherwise,
on the fate of those acceptances being known in this country.
But, not being entirely satisfied with this arrangement, Heyland

(b) See Rev. Code, Art. 65. sec. 38, as to amendment of equity pleadings.
In Calvert v. Carter. 18 Md. 108, it was held that this provision merely en-
larges the time within which amendments may be made; they are still to be
made on application to the Court, which must judge of the propriety of the
proposed amendment, and no appeal lies from its action. And that the pro-
priety of allowing a supplemental answer to be filed depends upon its
avowed object, as stated in the petition for leave to file it, and not upon
other and distinct matters contained in the answer itself, and not referred
to in the petition. See Glenn v. Clark. 53 Md. 602, to the same effect. As
a general rule, a special case must be shown before the Court will allow a
defendant to amend his answer. Williams v. Savage Co. 3 Md. Ch. 418.
Amendments will be allowed where new matter has come to the knowledge
of defendant since his answer was filed, or in a case of surprise or mistake,
and in some other special cases. Ibid. A defendant has no right, under
pretext of answering a supplemental bill, to add to or amend his answer
to the original bill. Swan v. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111. Cf. Murdochs Case, 2
Bland, 463.

(c) See Thompson v. McKim, 6 H. & J. 303.