CROSS V. MOBGAN. 24:5 �which should in any, the slightest, degree encourage negli- gence, indifference, or inattention to the duties imposed by law upon parties who are called upon to make statements under oath. And it seems to me that, before any court of equity should allow such amended answers, it should be per- fectly satisfied that the reasons assigned for the application are cogent and satisfactory ; that the mistakes to be corrected or the facts to be added are made highly probable, if not certain; that they are material to the merits of the case in controversy ; that the party has not been guilty of gross neg- ligence, and that the mistakes have been ascertained and the new facts have come to the knowledge of the party since the original answer was put in and swom to." �In Huffman v. Hummer, supra, the late Chancellor Green, in denying a motion to amend, said : "It is clear that the mis- take in the case has not been ascertained, and that no new fact has come to the knowledge of the defendant since the answer was swom to. Every fact now within the knowledge of the defendant was known to him at the time of putting in the answer, and it would tend to the encouragement of gross negligence to permit a defendant to remould an answer, to the truth of which he has swom, with a fuil knowledge of ail the facts. * * * If it was a mere mistake of the law, it is clear that the answer cannot be amended on that ground." �In Suydam v. Truesdale, supra, the court ref used, as a mat- ter of course, leave to file a supplemental answer to a bill of forecloBure, beoause it appeared that the fact which the de-^ fendants wanted to introduce was known to them at the time of the original answer, and that it had not been omitted by their mistake. �Without multiplying authorities, which seem to be ail in the same direction, the application to amend in this case must be denied. ��� �
