
    Daniel S. Griswold v. William Inman.
    1823. Nov. 15.
    The filing of a replication, after notice given of motion to dismiss bill for want thereof, is good cause against the motion ; but it will only be allowed on payment of costs.
    Mr. Palmer moved to dismiss the bill, for want of a replication to the answei-, which had been filed more than three weeks_
    Mr. Warner showed for cause, that a replication was now filed, since notice of this motion.
    After some inquiry at the bar, and hearing a decision of the late chancellor Kent,
   The Court

said, that the filing of the replication was good cause against the motion; the costs of which, however, must be paid by the complainant.  