Opinion
12-01-1932
COCHEU et al. v. NEW JERSEY GENERAL SEC. CO. et al.
Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark (Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark, and Arthur Berenson and Lawrence Berenson, both of New York City, of counsel), for complainants. Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark (Frederick J. Faulks, of Newark, of counsel), for defendants.
Syllabus by the Court.
After answer filed, amendment of bill will be denied, where no substantial necessity is shown for amendment and there has been long, unexplained delay in making application for leave to amend.
Suit by Fred C. Cocheu and others against the New Jersey General Security Company and others. On motion for leave to file an amended bill of complaint.
Motion denied.
Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark (Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark, and Arthur Berenson and Lawrence Berenson, both of New York City, of counsel), for complainants.
Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark (Frederick J. Faulks, of Newark, of counsel), for defendants.
LEWIS, Vice Chancellor.
This is a motion for leave to file an amended bill of complaint. The proposed amendment is an almost complete recasting of the original bill. The suit concerns transactions in connection with the construction of a waterworks for Jersey City and the financing thereof. The original bill was filed in May, 1926, and was promptly answered. The application for leave to amend was not made until more than five years later.
In chancery, amendments are allowed with great liberality, but after answer filed amendment of the bill is not a matter of right. Under the circumstances of the present suit I do not think leave should be granted to complainants to file the proposed amended bill. Complainants' brief, submitted on this application, in its analysis of the amended bill substantially shows that there is no necessity for an amendment. Complainants admit that no new fact is introduced which is not in the original bill, and that it is doubtful if any new theories are introduced except that they are more explicitly stated. It is conceded the amended bill covers exactly the same subject-matter and that the transactions in both bills are the same. All that the proposed bill does is to add additional prayers for relief, set forth specifically certain inferences which admittedly could be drawn from facts alleged in the original bill, and in general set forth explicitly certain details of transactions more generally alleged in the original bill.
These concessions by complainant disclose that there is no real necessity for the amendment. In addition, complainants give no reason why they should have waited for more than five years before making this application.
The motion will be denied, reserving to the complainants the right to apply on final hearing to make amendments which may then be found to be necessary.