
    Thomas W. Giles v. Robert F. Giles, Administrator of Matilda Giles. George Chur v. Same.
    A party applying for leave to file a supplemental, or amended answer, must shew, upon oath, that, during all the previous stages of the cause, he was ignorant of the fact, on which the defence proposed to be set up is rested. And such an application is always, in some degree addressed to the discretion of the Chancellor, whose decision will not be interfered with, unless in a case of manifest error and injustice.
    Before Johnston, Chancellor, at Charleston, January, 1831.
    
    The complainant, Thomas W. Giles, was one of two children of the intestate, Matilda Giles, and assigned his interest in her estate to her administrator, the defendant, Robert F. Giles, in trust, in the first place, to pay the debts of the said Thomas W. Giles, and then to hold the residue subject to certain other trusts. The assignment was accepted by the defendant; and the bill in the first of these cases was filed to compel a performance of the trusts. The bill in the second' case was by a creditor of Thomas W. Giles, for the same purpose', and for an account.
    The defendant in his answers, admitted the. assignment, and that Thomas W. Giles was intitled to a moiety of his intestate’s estate ; but alleged that the estate was not ready for distribution, there being several large outstanding demands upon it to be settled : and at the present term, he moved for leave to file supplemental, or amended answers, for the purpose of stating in them, that in prosecuting the claims of his intestate to certain property in England, the defendant had learned, that the said Thomas W. Giles, was an illegitímate child of the intestate, not having been born until several years after the death of his supposed father; and that the defendant had, on inquiry, ascertained, by indisputable evidence, that the information was true. And it was submitted, therefore, that the said Thomas W. Giles could not share, in the estate of the intestate, with the defendant, who was her legitimate child ; and that the defendant ought to be permitted to state the facts, and set up this defence, by supplemental, or amended answers to the bills.
    The Chancellor refused to grant leave, and the defendant now moved to reverse his decision.
    Hunt, for the motion.
    Wilson, contra.
    
   Q’Neaix, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The only question submitted to our consideration is, whether the defendant had the right to file supplemental, or amended answers. An application for this purpose is always, in some degree, address. ed to the discretion of the Chancellor ; and we would not willingly interfere with his exercise of it. Still there might be a case of manifest error and injustice, in which this Court would interfere. It is enough, however, in this case, to say, that it is not one, in which we can discover, that the Chancellor has refused the motion, where it ought to have been granted. . Let it be conceded to the defendant, that he is not estopped by his answer, or by his acceptance of the assignment, from making this defence; yet before the Court would permit him to set it up, he must shew, that during all the previous stages of the case, he was wholly ignorant of the facts, on which this defence rested. This he did not shew at the hearing before the Chancellor ; nor is it yet done in any other way, than by statements, unsustained by the oath of the parly making the motion, which was the only way, in which the Chancellor, or this Court, .could be legally informed of it.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, and the Chancellor’s decision affirmed.

Johnson, J., and Hakpeb, J., concurred.

Appeal dismissed.  