HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0829 and id is 1 raw text is: HOWLING V. BUTLER
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR rSir Thomas Plumer] (after stating the facts). This
demurrer is objected to in substance and in form. If the original bill, without any
amendment, had been heard, it must have been dismissed with costs, because the
Plaintiffs had no title to redeem. Instead of filing a new bill, they, two months after
the answer put in, purchase the equity of redemption from William Moss, and on the
20th January 1817 amend the bill. They could not graft the new facts, by way of
amendment, upon the original bill, and entitle themselves to the costs of the original
bill, which was clearly unfounded. Two of the same persons are Plaintiffs in the
amended bill-as were Plaintiffs in the original bill; and then is the s~me Defendant,
in the amended bill as in the original bill; but the title obtained from James Moss,
under which the Plaintiffs claimed in the original bill, is quite different from the
title procured from William Moss, under which they claim in the amended bill; a title,
obtained after the filing of the original bill, and the answer to it. If an event
happens subsequent to the filing of the bill, by which a title arises, that cannot be
introduced by amending the original bill in which no title was shewn. Here a new
event, posterior to the bill and answer, has given a right. Then, as to the form of
the demurrer. This is a general demurrer in form and substance; it is not a
demurrer for want of equity, but was necessarily in the form it is, from the circum-
stance of its being a demurrer to an amended bill. It is not a speaking demurrer; it
only mentions matter in the bill, not matter out of it.
[245] Knight and Matthews, a fact which occurred subsequent to the bill, was stated
in the answer, but incorrectly, and therefore the Plaintiff amended his bill, stating
the fact correctly; and such amendment I thought was proper to put the fact properly
in issue. In Adams v. Dowding, the facts which occurred subsequent to the bill were
such as might have been considered by the Master under'a decree on the original bill ;
and therefore I thought them not properly the subject of a supplemental bill. Those
cases were decided under very different circumstances from the present. The
demurrer must be allowed.
Mr. Agar and Mr. Duckworth asked for full costs, and cited Wood v. Dyneley
(ante, vol. i. p. 32).
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR. I think this is a case where full costs ought to be
given.
Demurrer allowed, and full costs given.
[245] HOWLING V. BUTLER. August 6, 1817.
When a plea is directed to stand for an answer, with liberty to except, the Plaintiff
is entitled to costs.
In this case the plea filed by one of the Defendants had been ordered to stand for
an answer, with liberty to except. The order was expressed in the following terms
(being, as the registers stated, the form constantly employed):- This Court doth
order that the said Defendant's said plea do stand for an answer, with liberty for the
Plaintiff to except thereto; and the [246] benefit thereof is hereby saved unto the
said Defendant, until the hearing of this cause. A difficulty having arisen in
obtaining a subpoma for payment of costs, in consequence of a doubt entertained
whether the Plaintiff was entitled to costs, the case was this day mentioned to the
Court by Mr. Swanston, and the following authorities being cited, Gilb. For. Rom.
94; Pract. Reg. 330; Hinde, 224; Harrison, 233; His Honor declared the Plaintiff
entitled to the usual costs.
[246] ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. DAY. August 8, 19, 1817.
When parties neglect to propose a receiver before the Master, qucere, whether the
Master can propose one, or whether an application ought not to be made to the
Court ?
A stranger cannot propose a receiver.
In this case, the neglect of parties to propose being accounted for, the Master was
directed to review his report, and receive their proposal of a receiver.
2 BLADD. 245.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0829&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)