
    John K. Van Ness, appellant, v. Elijah L. Robbins, respondent.
    On appeal from an order advised by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, made March 12th, 1889, in Robbins v. Van Ness, striking out of the answer of the defendant, Van Ness, clauses III. and IV., as follows:
    III. This defendant further answering, admits, that there was aij agreement in said bond which declared that should any default be made in the payment of the interest due, or to become due, thereon at any time, and that the same should remain unpaid for the space of thirty days thereafter, then said principal sum- and interest mentioned in said bond should become due and payable, at the election of said complainant. But this defendant denies that any default has been made, on his part, in the payment of the interest due on said bond, as-alleged in said bill of complaint; that if any interest became due on said bond,, and remained unpaid for the space of thirty days, it was because of the fault and neglect of the said complainant in not calling or sending to the office of this defendant and receiving the interest due upon said bond, according to an' agreement and an understanding between said complainant and this defendant at the time of the making and delivery of said bond and mortgage.
    IV. And this defendant further answering, says, that at the time of the-execution and delivery of said bond and mortgage, it was understood and. agreed by and between said complainant and this defendant that the interest upon said bond, when due, should be demanded of and payable by this defendant at the office of this defendant, No. 212 Broadway, in the city of New York; that said complainant should call or send for the same at his own. convenience; and this defendant says that said complainant never called or sent for said interest money after it became due, although he, this defendant, was ready and willing and would have paid the same if demanded; that no demand has been made for said interest money, and the first intimation this defendant had of these proceedings herein was by notice of publication a few days prior to the expiration of the time for answering.
    The following is the order appealed from:
    This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of the counsel: for the complainant to strike out the defendant’s answer, on the' ground that it is insufficient and contains no equity as against the complainant’s bill; and on hearing Nelson Runyon, counsel of complainant, for the motion, and William H. Davis, counsel' of defendant, against the same:
    It is, on this 12th day of March, a. D. 1889, ordered, that the third and fourth clauses of said answer be stricken out, with the-costs of this motion to be taxed.
    
      Mr. William H. Davis, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Nelson Runyon, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This order is affirmed as made by the court of chancery..

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Magie, Scudder, Van Syckel, Brown, Clement,. Cole, Smith, Whitaker — 12.

For reversal — None.  