Legal Opinion

Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. McLouth

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided June 30, 1926No. 4487PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDonahue, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff in error that the court erred to its prejudice in permitting the defendant to file its amended plea and in admitting evidence in reference to MeLouth’s contracts with the government, and their subsequent cancellation. A court has discretion to permit amendment to pleadings upon such con*583ditions as it shall in its discretion and by its rules prescribe. Section 954, R. S. (section 1591, Comp. St.); Mexican Central Ry. Co. v. Duthie, 189 U. S. 76, 23 S. Ct. 610, 47 L. Ed. 715; Mathieson Alkali Works v. Mathieson, 150…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mexican Central Railway Co. v. DuthieSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Duesenberg Motors Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Todd Dry Dock & Construction Corp. v. Sumner Iron WorksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
  4. Mathieson Alkali Works v. MathiesonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1906
  5. American Chain Co. v. Interstate Iron & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1923

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Brownlee v. MohlerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API