|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 WALSH v. SMITH.
party, &c. To the truth of this supplemental petition, William
Gwynn, a solicitor of the petitioner, made affidavit in the usual form.
Whereupon, it was Ordered, that these applications stand for
bearing on the 5th of October, then next, provided that copies be
served, &c.
12th October, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The petition of John
Glenn, administrator de bonis non of Stephen Casenave, deceased,
standing ready for hearing, the solicitors of the parties were fully
heard, and the proceedings read and considered.
It has been contended, that whatever may be the fate of this
Application, Richard Emory cannot be in any manner affected by
it; because be was brought in by the amendment made to the ori-
ginal bill; and although an injunction had been asked for by that
amendment, it does not appear that any writ of injunction was
ever awarded against him. Whether such was the fact or not, or
how far his judgment and its incidental lien may be affected by
the actual state of these proceedings, it may not be necessary at
this time to determine, since he is dead, and his representative
who was made a party to this suit, is not now here complaining of
any thing.
But the indistinct manner in which the amendment has been
made, in this case, has left an obscurity over it in this particular,
which may perhaps hereafter be the occasion of much difficulty.
A supplemental bill is a distinct record; but an original and
amended bill are, in general, treated as one entire bill, and as con-
stituting, in fact, but one record; and therefore, after a bill has
been amended, the proceedings are on the amended bill; that is,
on the original bill so amended. An amendment does not, how-
ever, alter the time of filing the original bill; it is only amended
by virtue of an order dated on a day specified; so that the pen-
dency of the suit, as to those parts which are amended, is only
from the time of filing the amendment; nor can the new matter in-
troduced by an amendment be used in aid, or to the disadvantage
of any thing previously done in the suit. As if a plaintiff had ob-
tained an injunction on his original bill, and the defendant had
lowered, and then the plaintiff had amended his bill; the pro-
ceedings, to get rid of the injunction, must be on the original bill
and the answer to it; the amendments cannot be used in support
of the induction. (e)
(c) Vernon v. Vawdry, 2 Atk. 119; Long v. Burton, 2 Atk. 218; Vere v. Glynn,
2 Dick. 441; McMechen v. Story, 1 Bland, 184, note.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
