Opinion
(Spring Term, 1804.)
Where the complainants attempted to amend by making new defendants, but drew their amended bill in such a manner that it did not appear to have any relation to the original bill, they were permitted to amend further so as to connect the two bills, upon their paying all the costs incurred on the copies of the amended bill issued.
In equity. The complainants attempted to amend their bill by making many new defendants; but drew their amended bill in such a manner that it did not appear to have any relation to the original bill. Copies of the amended bill had been sent out and served on the defendants. The complainant's counsel having discovered the omission, moved the court for leave to amend their proceedings, by connecting the two bills together, so as to make up but one record; and the only contest was upon what terms the leave should be granted.
I think it but reasonable to grant the leave prayed; but surely it must be granted upon payment of the cost incurred by the copies of the amended bill which issued, and were served on persons whom they now chose to consider as strangers to the bill at that time. This was their own act; and although they may eventually succeed in the cause, yet it would be very reasonable to make the defendants pay the costs of those copies. I am clearly of opinion they must pay all costs which have arisen in consequence of the omission they now wish to amend, by making the same persons defendants.
By the Court: The complainants must pay the costs of the copies which issued improperly against the persons now prayed to be parties; but no attorney's fee.
(631)