Glazer v. Lowrie
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
„ In ERROR. ON the trial of this cause in the Court of Common Pléas . evi-of-Allegheny county, after the plaintiff had closed his evidence, the defendant moved for leave to add the plea of setanc^ stated, that under it, the same matters would be proved, which had been given in evidence on a former trial. The Court overruled the motion, and an exception was taken to their opinion.
Read the full summary
„ In ERROR. ON the trial of this cause in the Court of Common Pléas . evi-of-Allegheny county, after the plaintiff had closed his evidence, the defendant moved for leave to add the plea of setanc^ stated, that under it, the same matters would be proved, which had been given in evidence on a former trial. The Court overruled the motion, and an exception was taken to their opinion. The case of Cunningham v. Day, 2 Serg. & Rawle, 1, has settled, that amendments are allowable.after the plaintiff has given his evidence. The plea of discount in the present case, was necessary to introduce the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Duncan J; —
The granting or refusal of amendments, is so much in the- discretion of Courts, as not to be the subject of revision by writ of error. But the Act of 1806, to regulate arbitrations and proceedings in Courts of Justice, having made it the duty of'Courts,' when any informality in a state*499ment or declaration, or entering a plea, will affect the merits of the case, to suffer the parties to alter or amend their statements, declarations, and pleas, on or before the trial of the cause, and if by such alteration and amendment, the adverse party is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sandback v. QuigleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Griffith v. EshelmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
- Burk v. HuberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Comfort v. LelandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838