ambler case Patterson against slaughter that der a defendant after have put in  his answer discover a new title and on petition the answer order to be take  off the file and the new matter add lib Reg a foe bill claim the remainder in  fee after a entail spend the defendant put in a answer and insist on a fine  have be levy by one of the remainder man in tail and claim underhim and now  before replication file petition for leave to take the answer off the file and  to put in a new answer and thereby insist on the person under who he claim be  a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice and to support his  petition make a affidavit that this new title be not discover till after he  have put in his answer and it be argue by the defendant counsel to be  reasonable and say that the new title be inconsistent with the former and that  otherwise the defendant can not have justice do he or will be put to bring a  bill of review with supplemental matter which will be a great hardship upon he  ambler er p Lord Hardwicke chancellor this be a application prince impression  it be to take the answer off the file and to put in a new answer there have be  some few to rectify mere mistake in a answer whether of the clerk in  transcribe or of the party himself and those have be grant with great  reluctance and caution and yet suppose the ground of this application to be  true and it must be take so as it be not deny there be reason in the thing and  the defendant ought some how or other to get at it as it now stand the  defendant can give proof of the latter title because it be not plead or allege  in his answer it be say at bar on the behalf of the defendant that to let  matter stand as they do will be to mislead the court to decree on a wrong case  and afterward the defendant may bring a bill of review with supplemental  matter which will be a hardship upon he when by the present method he may have  the right determine in my opinion the defendant will in such case be in a  worse condition than his counsel represent he for I be apprehensive he can not  attain the end by a bill of ambler review Lord Bacon rule have these word in  case such new matter come to the knowledge of the party after the decree and  can not have be make use of in the cause at the time of the decree make see  young v Keighle Ves they be dark in themselves and a construction have be put  upon they that be that come to the knowledge of the party alter publication  pass all the bill of review I recollect to have know be of new matter to prove  what be put in issue Lord Effinghams case Ves sen be so he claim under a old  entail and though he afterward make title under a different entail yet the  issue be as claim under some old entail general in the present case it be not  new matter to prove what be put in issue but to prove a title that be not in  issue and therefore the defendant will not be entitle to a bill of review what  be to be do I be of opinion the court ought not to let the answer be take off  the file and a new one put in for if the plaintiff apprehend he can have  advantage of any admission in the answer the court can take it from he two  method have be propose saint for defendant to file a cross bill d to put in a  further answer as to saint the title of a purchaser for valuable consideration  be not ground for relief though it be a good defence beside the proof in the  cross cause can not be make use of in the original cause the same matter not  be in issue as to d further answer be in all case put in at the instance of  the plaintiff as on exception or motion to amend I be afraid to give  encouragement to application of this kind I have rather do as have be do and  be consistent with the rule of law which be that you can withdraw a plea and  put in another but the court will on motion give leave to amend the plea  ambler let the answer be take off the file and this new matter be add by way  of addition on payment of the cost of this application and of the amendment V  pierce v grove that Jan vern see pierce v grove ante Alpha v Payman dick  Verney v Macnamara bro c c but by the present practice a defendant be not  allow to amend his answer but on a proper case make out be permit to file a  supplemental answer Jennings v Merton coll Ves Dolder v bank of England Ves  strange v Collins v b Edward v MLeay ib Mitf plead in Fench v mile mad a  supplemental schedule to a answer be allow to be put in after a decree see the  ground for the modern practice state by Lord Eldon in curl v townsend Ves a  supplemental answer be however only permit on some strong ground as fraud and  the like but not on negligence and the party must state specifical what be to  be put on the record ib as to the necessary affidavit in such case see well v  wood Ves for case of mistake in the title to a answer see Griff v wood Ves  peacock v duke of Bedford v b white v Godbold mad ambler er p