Pearson v. Smith, Clark & Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This is a review. The original action was assumpsit for money lent and advanced to the defendants, and for money paid, laid out, and expended for the defendants, and for money had and received by the defendants for the plaintiff’s use, and for interest on money. Also, for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered, and for labor and services and materials provided, all at the defendants’ request.
Read the full summary
This is a review. The original action was assumpsit for money lent and advanced to the defendants, and for money paid, laid out, and expended for the defendants, and for money had and received by the defendants for the plaintiff’s use, and for interest on money. Also, for goods, wares, and merchandise sold and delivered, and for labor and services and materials provided, all at the defendants’ request. The plaintiff’s specification was as follows : “ This action is brought to recover the amount paid upon a note given to you without any consideration, to amount of $142.83.” The original writ…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, C. J.
That amendments are allowed with great liberality in this country, as stated in Stearns v. Wright, 50 N. H. 293, is true; and that they are almost universally allowed, where they do not surprise, hinder, or delay the opposite party, and may, of course, be allowed in the discretion of the court, even in case of surprise, hindrance, or delay, as there stated ; — and the general proposition, which the plaintiff quotes from that opinion, that amendments of the declaration will *70be allowed if thereby the form of action is not changed, and if the identity of the cause of action is preserved, is no…
2Cited by3 opinions
- V.S.H. Realty, Inc. v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Clinical Lab Products, Inc. v. MartinaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981
- Kenneth E. Curran, Inc. v. Auclair Transportation, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986