Jackson v. Edwards

said, that the taking the bill pro confesso upon the original order was irregular. Where a bill is amended before answer and after appearance, it is necessary to enter a new order to answer the bill as amended, and the complainant, in such a case, cannot take advantage of the original order. The practice is properly laid down by Mr. Hoffman in his Practice, v. 1, p. 297.

Note.—There were pecularities in the present case which caused the court not to give costs.