Petrie v. Woodworth
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR on certiorari, the exceptions were, 1st, that the defendant below pleaded in abatement, a misnomer, in being sued as Petris, instead of Petrie. 2d, That the declaration was uncertain and insufficient.
1Per curiam
It was not a misnomer. It was the same surname, with the mis-spelling of one letter. The pronunciation would still be the same in French, as the name seems' to import. It may also be well inferred from the return, that it appeared to the justice, that the defendant was as well known by one name as the other, if they be different; and such a replication to such a plea is good. The second objection has no weight. The declaration is goGd enough. It was “ for damages, on account of the defendant’s not “ fulfilling- a contract for a certain lot of lease land, lying in. German Flats.” We are of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Patchin v. RitterNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Hart v. LindseySuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1845
- McClaskey v. BarrU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1891