Tennessee Chancery Reports; Reports of Cases Argued in the Court of Chancery of the State of Tennessee and Decided by the Hon. William F. Cooper, Chancellor of the Seventh Chancery District at Nashville [1872-1878] Volume 3

Tennessee Chancery Reports; Reports of Cases Argued in the Court of Chancery of the State of Tennessee and Decided by the Hon. William F. Cooper, Chancellor of the Seventh Chancery District at Nashville [1872-1878] Volume 3

List price: US$22.41

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 edition. Excerpt: ...3 Myl. & Cr. 653. Nor can a demurrer be put in after amendment by simply adding a new party, where the defendant failed to answer the original bill in time. Powell v. Oockerell, 4 Hare, 569. But if the plaintiff so amend his bill as to make an entirely new case, leaving the original bill, as Lord Eldon expresses it, in nubibus, the answer must be treated as in the clouds also, . and a demurrer would be in order. Ritchie v. Ag/lwin, 15 Ves. 79; Uresy v. Beavan, 13 Sim. 353. Our own Supreme Court is, therefore, strictly correct when it says, per' Nelson, J., " Upon demurrer, the amended and original bills are to be taken as one when relating to the same subjectmatter." Bradley v. Dibbrell, 3 Heisk. 524. The amended and supplemental bill of April 19, 187 0, was an entinly new bill, so far as it sought to reach the supposed usury taken from John R. Davis or Frazier by the Benders, and a demurrer to that part of the bill would not be overruled by any thing in the previous answer of BurrellY Bender, and was a legitimate defence. But the amended and supplemental bill did not abandon the original bill so far as it sought to set aside the sale by VVhite and the redemption by Bender, although it certainly stated on its face what primd facie was a complete defence to the relief sought. I am inclined to think it made an entirely new case, leaving the old bill in nubibus, and that a general. demurrer would probably have lain to the whole case as thus amended. No such demurrer was put in. The demurrer was, in fact, by its assignment of causes, confinedexclusively to the bill so far as it sought to reach the usury. The court, consequently, erred in treating it as a demurrer covering the whole bill, and in dismissing the bill. The...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 260 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 472g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236737997
  • 9781236737991