
    French and others against Shotwell.
    
      July 31st.
    
    Where a plaintiff asked for further time to except to the answer, which was granted; and, also, for leave to amend his bill, after such answer, and after a plea accompanying it, but not noticed for argument; the plaintiff, on being allowed to amend his bill, was ordered to pay jive dollars for the extra costs of the further answer, and the taxable costs of the plea, in case it should become useless, in consequence of the bill being amended.
    MOTION on the part of the plaintiffs, for further time to except to the answer, and for leave to amend the bill, after the Said answer, and after a plea accompanying the same, but not noticed for argument.
    
      J. V. Henry, for the motion,
    
      H. Bleecker, contra.
   The Chancellor.

The delay in excepting to the answer is sufficiently accounted for, and the plaintiff ought, therefore, to have time to except. To allow the bill to be amended in this stage of the cause, is according to the practice of the Court. (3 Atk. 370. Newland’s Pr. 82. Cooper’s Tr. on Pl. 333. 1 Fowler’s Ex. Pr. 111. 112.) Both parts of the application must, therefore, be granted. If exceptions had been taken to the answer, and submitted to, or on reference, had been found well taken, then the plaintiff might have amended his bill, of course, without costs, according to the 15th rule of this Court. But here he comes before exceptions are actually taken, and if they should not be taken, or, if taken, overruled, the plaintiff ought to pay something to the defendant for the extra costs of putting in a further answer. The English rule is to require 20s. costs, in such cases. So, also, if the plea should be rendered useless by the amendments, the costs of that plea ought also to be paid, I shall, therefore, grant the rule, subject to the contingency payjng ti1e taxable costs of the plea, in the one case, and five dollars for the extra costs of the further answer, in the other case.

The sum of five dollars is adopted, as nearly corresponding with the 20s. sterling, under the old English rule, and yet the relative value of stated sums is constantly varying. Even the 20s. sterling was deemed, a century ago, quite too small an allowance, and the costs were increased, in one case, by the additional allowance af 3l. (Rowe v. Stuart, Dickens, 58.) Lord Thurlow, in another case, allowed 40s. on such an amendment. But the smaller allowance is suited better to the state of our practice, and the moderation of its expense.

Order accordingly.  