About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

William Hardeman and Henry R. W. Hill, Complainants, v. Benjamin D. Harris U.S. 726 (1849)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0285 and id is 1 raw text is: 726 SUPREME COURT. Hardeman 'et al. v. Harris. WILLIAM HAFDEzAI AND HENRY R. W. HILL, COMPLAINANTS, V. BENJAMIN D. HARRIS. If an exception be taken to an answer in chancery upon the &round that certain allegations in the bill are neither answered, admitted, nor denied, it becomes ne- cessary to inquire whether the facts -charged in the allegations are material, and might, if established, contribute to support the equity of the complainant. If they will not, the omission to answer the allegations is not a good ground for ex- ception to the answer, and the exception must be overruled. Therefore, when a bill charged that certain notes were given for the purchase of slaves introduced into the State of Mississippi, as merchandise and for sale, after the first day of May, 1833, and the answer omitted to notice the allegation, such omisson was not a good ground for an exception. This court has repeatedly decided that the fact stated is no defence to a suit at law. Still less can it be a defence in equity. Where an allegation in the bill was, that the complainants were only sureties, and that their principal was insolvent, the answer was not justly subject to exception for omitting to notice it. The fact in no way strengthened the equity of the corn- plainants. THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of the State of Mississippi, on a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof. The facts in the ,.ase are sufficiently set-forth in the opinion of the court. It was argued by Mr. Nelson, on behalf of the respondent, Harris; no counsel appearing for the complainants. sr. Nelson contended that neither of the exceptions was well taken. The first, becanse the allegation to which it refers was wholly immaterial, and not therefore required to be answered. The second, because the allegations therein referred to, con- tained in said bill, if at all material, Which is denied, have been substantially responded to by said answer. In support of the first proposition it is submitted, t That to justify an exception to an answer in chancery upon the ground of insufficiency,, it is necessary to show that the omission alleged is material to the purpore and object of the complainant's bill. 2 Dan.: Chan. Prac. 261 ; Welford's Eqtuity Pleai. 368; a on Disc.r160 1 ecOlellan & Younge, 334. In Hirst v. Peirce, 4 Price, 136, (2 Eng. Exch. Rep.,) Chief Baron Richardson says : - There is great mistake in general in this court as to what is a material exception. The true way of arguing and considering such an exception is by ascertaining whether, if the defendant should answer in the affirmative, his admission wodd be of use to the plaintiff. I it would, it must be answered ; if not, it is not material. And in Bally v. Kenrick, 13 Pride, 294, (6 Eng. Exch. Rep. 99,) Sir William Alexander, Chief Baron, says: - The

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most