Holmes v. Lansing
New York Supreme Court
Emott moved to amend the declaration after plea pleaded, which. was granted. A question - then, arose Whether the: defendant was entitled both to an imparlance and to costs. The following cases, were cited, 1~ Sir. 950; 1 Dallas, 494.-2 Black. Rep. 785.. -
1Per curiam
There seems to be some diversity of.practice in the.English courts' in this - respect;- This-.court will, therefore, establish-a rule of its -o.wn. As the. amendment is-a benefit to the plaintiff, it is reasonable "that he should pay the costs; and it is equally reasonable, that, the defendant, after Tin amendment, should be allowed to plead de nbvo.
We are, therefore, of opinion that the' amendment be allowed, on payment of costs, and giving an imparlance.(b)
Rule granted?-
Stafford v. Green, 1 Johns. R. 505. Livingston v. Rogers, 1 Caines’ R. 584. Rogers v. Phinney, 1 Green. 1. See 2 Green.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- AnonymousUnited States Circuit Court · 1808
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bogart v. M'DonaldNew York Supreme Court · 1801