Stevenson v. Mudgett
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The original writ contained but one count, which was a special count, upon a note or memorandum, dated November 30, 1830, signed by the defendant, of which the following is a copy.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The original writ contained but one count, which was a special count, upon a note or memorandum, dated November 30, 1830, signed by the defendant, of which the following is a copy. “ For value received, I promise to pay James Stevenson, or order, one hundred and four dollars, and sixteen cents, to be paid in young likely neat stock, to be demanded at my house in Jackson, in three years from, date, and interest annually ; the above named stock will be received within any of the above named time, at James Stevenson’s house in Tamworth, at the appraisal of men.” At January term, 1839,…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
An amendment is not admissible which is inconsistent with the nature of the declaration, or which changes the cause of action. This is the rule laid down in Butterfield vs. Harvell, 3 N. H. Rep. 201, and which has since been uniformly recognized as the true principle. The application of the principle, in that case, is, perhaps, somewhat questionable. It is evident that the matter of the amendment there offered might have been regarded as merely an additional particular of the contract declared on, which had been omitted in the original draft of the declaration, although it undoubtedly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Butterfield v. HarvellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Goddard v. PerkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1838
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cahill v. TerrioSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Merrill v. RussellSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Gilman v. CateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Hurd v. ChesleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1874
- Little v. MorganSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.