McKIM v. THOMPSON, 163

of all or any of them; nor does that part of the 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 hearing, than of a
supplemental answer.

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 on the hearing of the real merits of the case.
In this case all the merits are, on this motion at least, to be derived
from the contracts; and the answer covers the whole ground over
which those contracts can in any way be extended: consequently,
It is in all respects coextensive with all the real merits of the case
in every shape whatever; and, therefore, the supplemental answer
prayed for cannot be allowed.