Prindle v. Aldrich
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought to recover on an open account of $510, of which the plaintiff was assignee. The cause was referred, and the referee reported for the plaintiff $100. He found, as a fact, that the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff $100 in settlement of the account, and based his decision on that finding.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover on an open account of $510, of which the plaintiff was assignee. The cause was referred, and the referee reported for the plaintiff $100. He found, as a fact, that the defendant had agreed to pay the plaintiff $100 in settlement of the account, and based his decision on that finding. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the case, as proved, was a departure from the case alleged, in its entire scope and meaning, which motion the referee denied. The defendant appealed on this ground, and the judgment was reversed—costs to abide the event. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Mason, Justice.
The amendment, which the plaintiff now asks to have made in his complaint, does certainly somewhat change the cause of action. It changes it as much so as it would if the plaintiff was allowed to change a complaint for goods, wares and merchandise, sold and delivered, to one upon a note given on settlement, where there was a dispute in regard to the claim.
*468The defendant claims and insists that such an amendment changed, substantially, the cause of action, which was not allowable under § 173 of the Code. I examined this question with some care at an early day, in the case of…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. . LeighNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Union Bank v. MottNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Ferris v. HardSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1893
- Betts v. KridellCity of New York Municipal Court · 1887
- Brown v. LeighNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.