McCormack, Anderson v. McCormack, Admr. of William, etc.: Chancery Cause, Halifax County (Part 10 of 16)
Zoom in to read each word clearly.
Some images may have writing in several directions. To rotate an image, hold down shift-Alt and use your mouse to spin the image so it is readable.
Practice Vol 3d from page 1742 to 1752 Smiths Chancery Practice Vol 1st from page 459. to 468. and American Chancery Digest by Wheeler Vol 2d page 346 to 348. where the subject is fully discussed, with reference to decisions of the Court, there is no proceeding in Chancery, the scope and purpose of which is better defined than that of the Cross Bill. The Counsel for Anderson McCormick is mistaken, when he says that the rules of proceeding in Equity are less rigid than at Law. the difference is this that, in Equity, many remedies are given for the relief of parties and to promote the ends of justice, that do not exist at Law and which are intended to supply the defects of Legal proceedings. But the remedies in Equity must be strictly pursued; The original Bill, the Supplemental Bill, the Bill of Review, the Bill of Discovery, the Cross Bill &c &c. Each have their different, and well defined object. Apply the principles laid down in the authorities cited upon Cross Bills, to the case before the Court, the Cross Bill makes Henry & Joseph Showalter parties, neither of whom were parties to the original suit, They were Pendente Lite purchasers, it is needless to suggest to your Honor that in an action at Law this would not form the subject of a plea Puis darriem Continuance. The Cross Bill was filed near 16 years after the Answer of Anderson