Smith's Administrator v. Kessler
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit, brought February 2d 1861, by Elizabeth Kessler against James Smith. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:— “1172.40. Philadelphia, June 23d 1860. “ Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of Elizabeth Kessler $172.40, without defalcation, for value received. (Signed) “ David Marple.
Read the full summary
Error to the District Court of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit, brought February 2d 1861, by Elizabeth Kessler against James Smith. The plaintiff declared on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:— “1172.40. Philadelphia, June 23d 1860. “ Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of Elizabeth Kessler $172.40, without defalcation, for value received. (Signed) “ David Marple. (Endorsed) “James Smith, “ “ Elizabeth Kessler, “ “ John Manderson. “July 7, cash on this note $10. “ 31, do. 10.” There was also a count on a guaranty to pay said note, not alleged…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered, by
Thompson, J.
At common law, amendments of judicial proceedings were discretionary, and not the subject of error, and so it was under some of the earlier Statutes of Amendment: 7 S. & *144R. 177. With us this was changed by the Act of 27th March 1806. By it amendments are allowable of right, subject of course to the legal discretion of the court whether they will or will not “ affect the merits of the cause in controversy.” If they will not, the plaintiff has a right to amend his narr., but not to the extent of introducing a new cause of action, and the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Deitz v. BeardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Shenk v. RobesonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858