|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
570 NEALE v. HAGTHROP.
considering an insufficient answer as no answer, (y) In this state,
obedience to an order directing a more perfect answer, upon excep-
tions being sustained, is usually enforced by attachment; but, as in
England, on the defendant's failing to answer as ordered, and the
process of attachment failing to coerce an answer, as required, the
whole bill may be taken pro confesso, (z) So where the defendant
bad answered, and the plaintiff then amends his bill, introducing
mew matter, he is entitled to an answer to such new matter; be-
cause, an amended bill is a part of the original bill, and the defen-
dant's answer thereto is a part of his original answer; and, conse-
quently, the defendant is as much bound to answer the amended
bill as to answer each portion of the original bill itself. Therefore
if he fails to do so, the plaintiff may proceed, according to the
course of the court, and have his whole bill taken pro confesso, (a)
For, as it has been said, if the plaintiff should not be entitled to
such a decree under those circumstances, then the authority of
this court would be very defective, and the justice of it might be
eluded. (5)
A plea is a special answer to a bill, differing in this from an
answer in the common form, as it demands the judgment of the
court, in the first instance, whether the special matter urged by it
does not debar the plaintiff from his title to that answer which the
bill requires. But where, from the matters set forth in the bill, an
answer is required to support a plea, it will be overruled without
such an answer; upon the ground, that the matters not thus
answered are taken for true. As where the bill sets out a claim
arising on a mortgage made more than twenty years before the in-
stitution of the suit, and then goes on to shew, that there has been
such partial payments, or recent acknowledgments as would take
&& cast out of the statute of limitations, were it pleaded. In such
case a plea of the statute of limitations must be supported by an
answer denying such partial payments and recent acknowledg-
ments *, for, otherwise, those circumstances, not being denied by
the plea, would be taken for true, if not denied by way of answer,
and would shew, that the case had been taken out of the statute, (e)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(y) Davis v., Davis, 2 Atk. 21; Attorney-General v. Young, 3 Ves. 209; Bishton
v. Birch, 1 Ves. & B. 367; Edwards v. McLeary, 2 Ves. & B. 258. —(z) Attorney-
General v.. Young, 3 Ves. 200; Seagrave v. Edwards, 3 Ves. 372. —(a) Jopling v.
Stuart, 4 Vet. 619. —(b) 1 Harr, Pra. Cha. 277; Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 21; Bucking-
ham v. Peddicord, 2 Bland, 447. ~(c) Plunket v. Penson, 2 Atk. 51; Roche v.. Mor-
gell, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 725; Bayley v. Adams, 6 Ves, 594.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
