atkins case Rattray versus Darley February b and his wife file a original bill  to which the defendant put in his plea and it wag allow d file a crossbill  against r and his wife to which they put in their answer and exception be take  then r and his wife file their amend bill against d who appear and pray six  week time to put in his answer to the amend bill after W and his wife shall  have answer the crossbill the plaintiff in the crossbill have procure a report  that the answer of r to it be insufficient r by that mean lose the priority of  suit Mr Rattray and his wife file a original bill against Darley the that of  may who on the three of July put in a plea and answer and the plea be allow on  the that of may Darley file a crossbill against Rattray and his wife to which  on the that of October last they put in their answer to which he file  fiftyfive exception on the that of December last Rattray and his wife file  their amend bill against Darley to which he appear on the that of December and  upon a suggestion that the plaintiff in the original cause have lose their  priority of suit by mean of their amend bill and have also put in a  insufficient answer to the crossbill Darley move before the master of that e  roll the first day of this term that he may have six week time to put in his  plea answer or demurrer to the amend bill after the defendant Rattray and his  wife shall have answer the plaintiff Darleys crossbill his honour give Darley  a month time the plaintiff in the original bill apprehend this to be irregular  move today that the order make in these cause on the d of January may be  discharge it be insist for the motion by Mr Tracy atkins that if a answer  appear upon the record of the court and have never be refer for insufficiency  the court will not examine whether it be sufficient or not that the bare take  exception to a answer can never be say to affect it in any respect for they be  little more than a memorandum deliver by one clerk in court to another and be  a private transaction and not of record that the plaintiff must take another  step to substantiate his exception and procure a order to refer they and must  also have a report of the insufficiency of the answer or else to all intent  and purpose it will be consider as a answer notwithstanding the exception and  if such a practice be allow it will be attend with ill consequence to the  proceed of this court for then a plaintiff to elude justice will have nothing  to do but to take exception and by that mean gain time and delay the plaintiff  in the progress of the cause and therefore insist that the special order for  time be irregular and shall have be a general one only atkins Mr Woodford  counsel for the plaintiff in the crosscause and defendant in the original  insist that if a plaintiff in a original bill after the crossbill be file  amend his bill in thin S material it be as to the amendment a new bill and the  plaintiff in the original bill shall be bind to answer the crossbill which be  file prior to the amendment make to the original bill before such time as the  plaintiff in the original bill shall have a answer to his amendment and as the  amend bill must be answer altogether so the priority seem in such case to be  lose as to the whole he cite for this pur ose the case of buckeridge versus  blundel before Lord chancellor king in h t and the case of steward versus roe  p wms and insist that as the plaintiff in the crosscause do on the that of  January obtain a order to refer the exception it be plain this be no affect  delay but that he be in earnest to proceed on hisexceptions and therefore the  order be regular and ought not to be discharge Lord chancellor as the answer  to the cross bill be not report insufficient I atkins er p do not lie much  stress on the argument that the plaintiff in the original bill have lose their  priority Vid the case of long versus Burton November before Lord Hardwicke atk  S c the substantial objection on the part of the motion be that here be a  order obtain for time to answer a amend bill after the answer be put in to the  crossbill to which there be exception only deliver to the plaintiff clerk in  court in the original bill but no proceed since to get a report of the answer  be be insufficient the master have not yet determine nor the court whether  this be a insufficient answer and therefore the question be if it ought not to  be consider to all intent and purpose as a answer but as the plaintiff in the  crosscause since he obtain the order of the d of January have get a subsequent  one for refer the exception I will not give a opinion now but let this motion  stand over till the second seal after the term and in the mean time let the  plaintiff in the crosscause procure the master report N B Darley the defendant  in the original and plaintiff in the crossbill procure the master report that  the answer of Rattray be insufficient and by that mean the latter lose his  priority