CBOSS V. MOBGAN. 241 �assembly, as appears in proof. But for that circumstance I Bhould impose a heavier fine. I do not find in the case that good will and fair intention which in cases of wrongful in- junctions sometimes reduce the offence so that the court is satisfied with the penalty of costs, The case requires more than this to sustain the dignitj of the court against wilfal breaches of its authority. So ordered. ���Cboss and others v, Moboak and others. �(Uircuit Cowt, J). Nm Jeney. Marcli 22, 1881.) �1. EQumr Pbaotice— Ambitoment — Anbweb. �Leave to amend an answer, in a suit to foreclose a mortgage, bjr the insertion of an additional fact, refused, where such fact was known to the defendant at the time the answer was flled.— [Ed. �On Bill to Foreclose, etc. �Nixon, D. J. This is an application to the court to allow one of the defendants to amend his answer. �The bUl was filed to foreclose a mortgage executed origi- nallyby one Joseph Cross, Jr., to Joseph Cross, to seeure the payment of $3,500. After the due execution of the encum- brance, the mortgaged premises were sold to one James E. English, "who assumed the payment of the mortgage as a part of the consideration money. English, in tum, couveyed the property to Anthony Q. Keasbey and Edward A. S. Man, as joint tenants, who also assumed the payment of the same. Keasbey and Man, holding the property as trustees for cer- tain creditors, transferred it to J. Pierpont Morgan, who, in the deed of conveyance to him, also assumed the payment of the mortgage as a part of the consideration of the transfer. The exeoutors of the mortgagee filed a bill against the . said Morgan and others, praying therein not only for a decree of foreclosure, but also that the said Keasby, Man, and Morgan might be respectively decreed to pay the deflciency, if the �v.6,no.3— 16 ��� �
