
    Hanna and others vs. Curtis and others.
    When a notice of motion must specify the grounds of the motion.
    Admissions of an assignor, made subsequently to the assignment, are not binding upon the assignees.
    This was a motion to dissolve an injunction, upon bill and answer.
    
      Geo. Underwood,
    for the complainants, objected to the notice of motion, because it did not state the grounds upon which the motion would be made. He insisted that if the application was based upon the fact that the whole equity of the bill was denied by the answer, that point should be stated in the notice.
    
      H. R. Mygatt, for the defendants.
   The Chancellor

decided that the rale of practice requiring a notice of motion to specify the particular points intended to be insisted on, was only applicable to cases where the opposite party has a right to explain, or answer the matters of the objections, by affidavit; and to cases where, by the practice of the court, the opposite party has a right to amend, or to perfect his defective proceedings, on proper terms.

He also decided that admissions of an assignor of property, assigned to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, made subsequent to the execution of the assignment, were not legal evidence against the assignees.  