Hoogendorn v. Daniel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
The appellant contends that the court below erred in permitting the plaintiff to file the amended complaint. It is unnecessary to cite authorities to the proposition that, in order to promote justice, a court may, in its discretion, permit amendment at any time before or during trial, unless the amendment as violative of some positive rule of law, or is such as to surprise or prejudice the opposite party. It is contended that the effect of the amendment permitted in this case was to change the theory of the suit, and to surprise the appellant to his…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Sacramento v. ClunieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Bradford v. FosterTennessee Supreme Court · 1888
- Sayward v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Johnston v. TrippeU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia · 1887
- Wilcox v. ClineMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Conley Camera Co. v. Multiscope & Film Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1914
- Stanton v. Union Oil Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1943
- Adams-McGill Co. v. HendrixDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1938
- Baker v. MulrooneyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
- Tide Water Oil Co. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.