Rodrigue v. Curcier
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
AMENDMENT. Case by Andrew Rodrigue, the plaintiff, against John Curcier, the defendant, in which the plaintiff went to trial before Duncan, J., in November last at Nisi Prius, on a declaration filed in February, 1822, containing the following counts:— First Count.
Read the full summary
AMENDMENT. Case by Andrew Rodrigue, the plaintiff, against John Curcier, the defendant, in which the plaintiff went to trial before Duncan, J., in November last at Nisi Prius, on a declaration filed in February, 1822, containing the following counts:— First Count. The plaintiff shipped one hundred and seven bales of cotton, consigned to the defendant in France, with'express orders to sell the same immediately after the same should come, to his hands, which the defendant accepted.' Second Count,—like the first as to shipment, &c. of the cottons, which the defendant undertook and promised he…
1Per curiam
The counsel for the defendant have urged every argument in support of their motion of which the case admitted; but as the court has no doubt.on this subject, it is unnecessary to hear the counsel for the plaintiff. The act of assembly, under which the amendment, during the trial at Nisi Prius, was permitted, has long ago received an-construction from which it would be wrong to depart. The construction -is this. When the merits *83of the case cannot be reached without an amendment, it is to be granted, provided that the cause of action be not changed. In Shock v. M’Chesney, the court refused an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Coxe v. TilghmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Diehl v. M'GlueSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1830
- Kester v. Stokes, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1835