Hatfield v. Secor
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal by defendants from an order at special term, denying a motion for leave to amend an answer. This action was brought, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been loaned to the defendants by William B. Hatfield, in his lifetime. The original answer denied the loan of money, and averred that WMiam.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from an order at special term, denying a motion for leave to amend an answer. This action was brought, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been loaned to the defendants by William B. Hatfield, in his lifetime. The original answer denied the loan of money, and averred that WMiam. B. Hatfield agreed to enter into a partnership with the defendants, and that the money so advanced to them was-advanced as part of his contribution to the capital stock of the partnership, and that he failed to complete his agreement, to the defendants’ damage $20,000. After the cause was…
1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.
— Amendments are in all cases matter of favor, and not of strict right (Graham’s Pr. 669. 2d ed.), and being addressed to the discretion of the court, no appeal can be taken from the order made on applications therefor (St. John v. West, 4 How. Prac. Rep. 331 ; Seeley v. Chittenden, 10 Barb. 303 ; Tallman v. Hinman, 10 How. 90 ; Tracy v. New York Steam Faucet Co., 1 E. D. Smith R. 357, citing and approving St. John v. West, supra), unless the certificate of the presiding judge at special term is procured, as provided by rule of this court of March 22d, 1851; which ivas not done in this caso.
Ap…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seeley v. ChittendenNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Guiterman v. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Mail Steamship Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1879
- John v. EytingeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
- McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Ry. Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1886