|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 PRICE v. TYSON.
fence, they had tacitly waived all such matters as were not set forth
in their answer.
And besides, it is certain that a mere bill of discovery may be
so amended, after the defendant has answered, as to pray for relief
in this court; and it is an established rule, that in answering even
such an amended bill, the defendant must confine himself to it
alone, and cannot be permitted to put in a complete answer over
again; and therefore, it is not only allowable, but necessary for the
defendant's own safety, that he should set forth and rely upon his
defence in his answer to such an original bill, lest it should be so
amended as to make it necessary for him to sustain such a defence
€Ten in this court, (f)
I am, therefore, satisfied that a defendant, in making answer to
a mere bill of discovery, must be permitted to introduce all matters
in avoidance; and to take as wide a range, over the whole case,
as would be allowed to him if the bill prayed for relief from this
court as well as discovery; and that there is, in this respect, no
material difference between a mere bill of discovery and a bill for
relief.
This then is a case in which the plaintiff excepts to the defen-
dants' answer; because it sets forth various matters which are im-
pertinent; and also, because it attempts to control a written by a
verbal contract.
It has always been the practice in this court, in all cases where
cither party excepts to the pleadings for impertinence, scandal, or
insufficiency, to file the exceptions in writing, and then move for
an order appointing a day for the hearing, on notice to the oppo-
site party, or his solicitor. And all such exceptions, in the same
case, may be brought to a hearing at the same time and together
before the Chancellor, and disposed of at once, without delay or
embarrassment, (g)
It is the duty of the court to take care that its records be kept
pure, to prevent them from being made the repositories or vehicles
of scandal, and to see that the answers do not contain useless and
impertinent matter. And although there may be a difficulty in an-
swering properly in some cases, as to a bill for an account and the
like, without running into long details; yet unreasonable prolixity
and mere verbiage should in all cases be avoided; and may be
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(f) Hildyard v. Cressy, 3 Atk. 303.—(g) 2 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 2; Raphael v.
Birdwood, 1 Swan. 228; Mortimer v. West, 3 Swan. 229.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
