Sanders v. Rolnick

I dissent and vote for affirmance on the ground that denial by the court below of the defendant’s motion to amend the answer by setting forth four defenses, two “ distinct ” and two “ partial ” did not constitute reversible error. The primary rule applicable here seems to me to be that which confines the appellant to the theory upon which the cause was tried and under which we are not required to pass upon questions not raised below. This cause was tried below on the theory of false arrest and imprisonment and all the evidence material to that issue offered by defendant was ultimately…