152 McKIM r. THOMPSON.—1 BLAND.

file with the leave of the Court, without any previous affidavit,
attempting to account for the mistakes or omissions proposed
to be corrected or supplied. It must, therefore, be altogether re-
jected.

But this defendant has now filed his petition, on oath, in a formal
manner, praying for leave to file a supplemental answer. This
petition points out, with sufficient certainty, that which the peti-
tioner alleges was a mistake as to the time of receiving the money
first spoken of in his answer. But that part of the answer, which
is thus designated as erroneous, is too indefinite and obscure to
lay the foundation of such an order as is asked for by the present
motion. It speaks of " considerable payments," without specify-
ing whether they were made in bills, or cash, or what was the
amount * of all or any of them; nor does that part' of the
163 answer make a reference to any other document by which
the uncertainty might be removed. Therefore, as regards the
present motion, whether the answer is suffered to remain as it now
does, or is corrected, as proposed, is of no kind of importance.

The Chancellor deems it unnecessary now to decide, whether a
supplemental answer should or should not be allowed to be filed to
correct this alleged mistake, in reference to the final hearing; since
the subject was not distinctly argued and presented to the Court
with that view.

The second and third class of errors and corrections, stated and
prayed for, are of the same character, and the same observations
will apply to both. The defendant admits he knew, at the time
he answered, that all right or claim which he could, in any manner,
make to the moneys received from Heyland, could only be derived
from the deeds which had been previously made and entered into
between him and Heyland. He does not pretend to have received
any money from Heyland, in any way, except under and by virtue
of those contracts; consequently, his right to hold and apply it,
can only be derived from them. His answer distinctly enough
states what he believed to be his rights, as well with regard to the
then state of things, so far as they were known to him, as with
reference to all other and future occurrences. If these contracts
authorized Thompson to hold the fund, in any way, for his own
use, the original answer, in which he has, by explicit reference,
embodied those contracts, as a part of it, with suitable and apt
words for that purpose, contains all that is substantially necessary
for his defence; and, consequently, those after extensions of
Thompson's liability, and subsequent ascertainment of the amount
of his claim upon the Bells, spoken of in his petition, are more
proper and fit subjects for proof and adjustment, on the final hear-
ing, than of a supplemental answer.

A supplemental answer is only intended to correct the allega-
tions of the original answer, or to remove from it dangerous ad-