244 FEDBBAI. REPORTER. �the defendant Morgan had very little personal knowledge of the transactions out of which the present controversy grew. He left the details of the proceedings and negotiations to his legal advisers. Eeasonable allowance should, therefore, be made for his ignorance of particular facts. But it cannot be claimed that, when his answer was swom to, he did not know the fact, which was then not stated, and which he now wants inserted as a supplement to his defence. In his answer he alleges that Keasbey and Man claimed they were entitled io the covenant of assumption of payment of the mortgage, as his trustees, and that the same was given and intended only as indemnity to them as such. In the amendment it is proposed to insert the additional fact that such covenant was put in without the knowledge, consent, or privity of the defendant. Daniells, in his Ch. PL & Pr, 799, states broadly that the court never permits amendments of this nature where the application bas been made on the ground that the defendant, at the time he filed his answer, was acting under a mistake in point of law. Nor is he allowed to contradiot the statements of his first answer. Livesey v. Wihcm, 1 Yes. & Bea. 149 ; Vanderveer v. Reading, 1 Stick. 446 ; Greenwood T. Atkinson, 4 Sim. 61. Nor do we find any well-considered case, authorizing a supplemental answer, which embraces any fact that was known to the defendant at the time hia answer was swom to, except in a few instances, where the court considered the reasons satisfaetory which were given for their original omission. Smith v. Babcock, 3 Sum. 583 ; Suy- dam V. Truesdale, 6 McLean, 459 ; Bowen v. Cross, 4 John. Ch. 376 ; Huffman v. Hummer, 2 G. E. Gr. 272. And here appears to be the difiBculty with the defendant's case. He bas not obtained his knowledge of the additional fact, which he wishes to put in, since his answer was filed. He knew it then, if he did not when the suit was commenced; and if it be a mate- rial fact it should have been then stated. �The leading case in this country on the subject of amend- ments to an answer is Smith v. Babcock, supra, in which the learned judge (Story) says: "Considering the solemnity of answers, I should be sorry to see any practice introduced ��� �
