IN RE SIMS. 441 �It will he observed that the application to annul must be made within two years from the discharge, and shall be in writing, and shall Bpecify which in particular of the several acts mentioned in the sec- tion is intended to be proved against the bankrupt, and shall set forth the grounds of such avoidance. The application must contain these requisites, and the evidence must be confined to the grounds set out therein. �What are -we to understand by the term "subject to amendaient," used in the section? Does it mean that other and different causes specified in section 5110 may be added, as they may be discovered from time to time, after the lapse of two years, and while the matter is still pending? An amendment is the correction of errors commit- ted in the progress of a cause. It may be in the statement of the cause of action, in its form, and it is allowed to make more definite and certain a defectively-pleaded cause of action. It is not allowed to make an entirely new case. A new case is not to be l'egarded as an amendment. This amendment, it seems to me, was only intended to be allowed to make some of the causes named in the section, and Buch as may have been defectively set out in the application, more definite and certain, and not new grounds named in the statute. The limitation was fixed that after that time the bankrupt could not be compelled to again contest his discharge, otherwise it could be done at the pleasure of the creditor. There are 10 grounds for oppo- sition to discharge named in section 5110. If the construction be as claimed by the applicant, to annul the discharge, he could within two years allege one ground, and, by way of amendment, from time to time afterwards, add one at a time until all were named, if the court, in the exercise of its discretion, would allow it, and thus practically deny to the bankrupt the benefit of the limitation. It was evidently intended that the creditor should, in his application to be made within two years, set out all his grounds for annulling the discharge, and to confine the hearing to them; but, if defectively set out, the court may allow amendment to make them more certain. To allow the amendment would be to entirely annul the limitation of the stat- ute, and thereby attempt judicially to repeal it. �The motion is therefore refused. ��� �
