
    ANDREW S. GARR v. SELAH HILL.
    The repetition in a further answer, or in an answer to an amended bill, of anything contained in a former answer, which is not necessary or expedients is impertinent.
    The answer was excepted to, and some of the exceptions were allowed by the master. The complainant then amended Isis bill. The defendant, in answering the exceptions and the amended bill, repeated the whole of his first answer, which contained eighty folios. The second answer was excepted to lor impertinence. The master reported that the exception was not well taken. An appeal to the Chancellor was taken to this report.
    
      S. R. Hamilton, for the appeal,
    cited 1 Hoff. Ch. Pr. 252 ; 3 Atk. 303; 1 Cooper’s Eq. Pl. 322; Mitford Pl. 257, 318 ; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr, 196; 2 Ib. 424 ; 6 Paige 46; Story’s Eq. Pl., § 868; 8 Paige 690.
    
      P. D. Vroom, contra.
    
   The Chancellor.

The exception should have been allowed. The repetition in a further answer, or in any answer to an amended bill, of anything contained in a former answer, which is not necessary'or expedient, is impertinent.  