Hamilton v. Boiden
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action, qui tarn, brought to recover the penalty given by the statute against taking excessive usury. The action came up to this Court by appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, in which court the plaintiff, by leave of the same court, had had liberty to amend his declaration; and had amended it accordingly.
Read the full summary
This was an action, qui tarn, brought to recover the penalty given by the statute against taking excessive usury. The action came up to this Court by appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, in which court the plaintiff, by leave of the same court, had had liberty to amend his declaration; and had amended it accordingly. The counsel for the plaintiff moved the Court, on Friday, the fourth day of the term, to amend the declaration by striking out the 21th and inserting the 28th day of May, the latter being the actual day of the loan of the money, which in the declaration was alleged to have been…
1Opinion of the Court
Thacher, J.,
declared himself in favor of allowing the amendment, as being within the rule, and agreeable to the practice of the Court in such cases. [See the rule (to which Thacher, J., referred) in the case of Tappan and Austin—ante, p. 32.]
Sedgwick, J.
I do not found my opinion on the English authorities, but on the rule of this Court. *The [ * 51 ] rule is express, “ that in all cases, excepting after joinder and demurrer,” (which is not the present case,) “ the plaintiff shall have leave to amend his writ and declaration,” upon the terms therein mentioned. This rule I consider as binding…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Keljikian v. Star Brewing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
- Fulton Bank v. BeachNew York Court of Chancery · 1829