|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRICE v. TYSON. 401
cheeked by the court itself wherever it can be done without im-
properly retarding the progress of the suit. The general rule is,
that if the answer goes out of the bill to state any matter, not ma-
terial to the defendant's case, it will be deemed impertinent and
may be expunged; but nothing can be considered irrelevant that
may have an influence upon the suit, attending to the nature of it.
Yet if what is pertinent be so mixed with that which is imperti-
nent, that the one cannot be separated from the other, the whole
matter with the impertinency mixed shall be expunged. And if
such foreign matter in an answer be scandalous as well as imperti-
nent, it may be struck out at the instance of a co-defendant, or
even a stranger, as well as the plaintiff in the case; and that too
at the costs of the party by whom it was filed. (A) .
The general rule as to impertinence seems to be sufficiently
clear in itself; but the proper application of it to cases as they
arise, has, in many instances, caused so much hesitation, that it
may be well just to mention some few of the instances which
afford illustrations of it.
In a case in which Anna Peck and Anna Maria Peck filed their
bill as widow and daughter of John Peck, deceased, against his
eldest son and others for dower, and their respective shares of
the deceased's personal estate. The eldest son put in his answer,
which he entitled thus: 'The several answer of John Peck, one
of the defendants to the bill of complaint of Anna Baines, alias
Green, assuming to herself the name of Anna Peck, as pretended
wife of John Peck, Esq., deceased, and of Anna Maria Green, as-
suming to herself the name of Anna Maria Peck, as daughter of
the said John Peck, Esq., deceased.' To this the plaintiffs ob-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(h) Shaftsbury v. Arrowsmith, 4 Ves. 71; Coffin v. Cooper, 6 Ves. 514; Lord
St. John v. Lady St. John, 11 Ves. 538; Norway v. Howe, 1 Meriv. 355; Oliver v.
Haywood, 1 Anstr. 82; Mason v. Mason, 4 Hen. &, Mun. 414; Cheseldine v. Gor-
don, 2 Bland, 79.
BIRCHFIELD v. SHARP.—19th January, 1714.—HART, Chancellor.—Ordered, that
the complainant have liberty to take the bill off the file, and to file a new bill with-
out costs; and have time till Monday next to declare which bill he will amend.
And that the other bill which is ordered to be taken off the file, be not so taken off,
but that it be lodged in the office where it may at any time be had.—Chancery Pro-
ceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 83.
NEALE v. CALVERT.—1717.—HART, Chancellor.—Forasmuch as it appears, that
the bill of complaint exhibited by the complainant against the defendant is altogether
scandalous for the ill language therein. It is Ordered, that the bill be dismissed out
of this court; and that the defendant recover his costs by him expended in the de-
fence of this suit against the complainant—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P, L. fol. 376.
51 v.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
