North v. Nichols
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, for the rent of leased premises ; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. The lease was an indenture under the seals of both parties, and a verdict obtained by the plaintiff at the March term of the court, 1870, was set aside by this court in October, 1870, upon the defendant’s motion for a new trial, on the ground that such a lease would not support tbe action of assumpsit.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the rent of leased premises ; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. The lease was an indenture under the seals of both parties, and a verdict obtained by the plaintiff at the March term of the court, 1870, was set aside by this court in October, 1870, upon the defendant’s motion for a new trial, on the ground that such a lease would not support tbe action of assumpsit. (37 .At the October term of tlie Superior Court in tiff moved to amend his declaration, and filed for the pm^H two now counts, one in covenant and one in debt, upon the same indenture of lease. The…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, C. J.
Neither of the three objections urged in the court below against the allowance of the amendments, was sufficient.
1. Under our original and general statute relative to amendments, the first objection would have been tenable; for; the amendments contemplated the addition of counts in debt and covenant and changed the form of the action. But by a somewhat recent and special statute, a joinder of such counts in a declaration is authorized, and the general statute is suf ficiently broad to permit the addition, by way of amendment, of anything which could have been originally inserted in the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Betts v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1840
3Cited by2 opinions
- Todd v. BetttngenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- Wood Co. v. Wil. Conf. AcademySuperior Court of Delaware · 1878