Little v. Fairchild
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1899, by defendants, front judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 172, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Assumpsit. Before Durham, P. J., of tbe 44th judicial district, specially presiding.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1899, by defendants, front judgment of C. P. Bradford Co., Dec. T., 1893, No. 172, on verdict for plaintiff. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Assumpsit. Before Durham, P. J., of tbe 44th judicial district, specially presiding. It appears from the record that this was an action of assumpsit brought by George S. Barker on September 29, 1893, to recover for certain onions sold to the firm of Fairchild, Grace & Co. The firm consisted of several partners, to wit: A. C. Fair-child, Y. W. Grace, George Grace and S. G. Dye. Service was had upon A. C. Fairchild and George Grace.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The amendment made of the statement of claim by the permission of the court was certainly broad. It permitted the introduction of proof on the trial which might otherwise have been excluded. The question, however, arises whether advantage can now be taken of the character of the amended statement. The allowance of it was within the power of the court below. The right to amend was with the plaintiff. The amendment did not change the cause of action. The leave given to amend is not such a final order as may be separately appealed from. Nor was attempt made to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- In re MalschickDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1914
- South Pittsburgh Water Co. v. WinterbergerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920