
    No 139.
    Oliver H. P. Canant, plaintiff in error, vs. James W. Mappin, administrator, &c. defendant in error.
    
       The Act of 1854, relating, in part, to the amending of “ pleadings," authorizes an amendment taking the form of a cross-bill, to be made to the - answer.
    In Equity, in Putnam Superior Court. Decision by Judge - Hardeman, September Term, 1856.
    Oliver II. P. Canant filed an original bill against James W. Mappin, as administrator of Thomas W. Mappin, for the settlement of a partnership business ; and such proceedings were had, that at the March Term, 1856, the pleadings were made up and the cause set down for trial. Subsequently, the defendant in the original bill filed a cross-bill, seeking discovery from the complainant, but did not show any sufficient reason why the same was not filed before the pleadings were made up. On this ground Canant demurred to the cross-bill. The Court over-ruled the demurrer, and this decision . is assigned as error.
    
      Adams, for plaintiff in error.
    Davis, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

A cross-bill is nothing more than an addition to the .-answer. It makes a part of the pleading which states the defence, the answer being the other part. Now to add to a. •..pleading, is to amend the pleading. If a new count is added to a declaration, the declaration is amended; if a new plea to a plea, the plea is amended. So, if a cross-bill is added; -to an answer, the answer is amended. There is not any word ■ more fit to express the effect of such an addition than this word, amended. When, therefore, a defendant adds to his ■answer a cross-bill, he amends his answer; and as his answer is his pleading, he amends his pleading.

But the Act of 1854, relating in part to amendments, says, that “ plaintiffs and defendants,” “ whether at Law or in .Equity, may, in any stage of the cause, as matter of right,

. amend their pleadings in all respects, whether in matter of .form or matter of substance.” {Ads 1853-’4, 48.)

We therefore think that the Court was right in not dis•missing the cross-bill in this case.  