Nellis v. Pennock Manuf'g Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
In Equity. Motion to amend bill in equity. Plaintiff moved to amend the bill after the filing of the master’s report by introducing into it a claim for damages and profits made during the time prior to the assignment of the patent to him, which included all rights to past damages.
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
I have no doubt of the power to allow the proposed amendment to the bill. Such an amendment is not contemplated by *380the rules prescribed by tlie court, governing amendments generally. Tremaine v. Hitchcock, 23 Wall. 518; Neale v. Neales, 9 Wall. 1; Mitf. Eq. Pl. 326, 331; Story, Eq. Pl. §§ 904, 905; Daniell, Ch. Pr. 463, 466: McArtee v. Engart, 13 Ill. 242. It is quite clear that the claim covered by the amendment might have been joined originally in the claim embraced in the bill. Henry v. Soapstone Co., 2 Ban. & A. 221; Packer Co. v. Eaton, 12 Fed. Rep. 865; Spring v. Sewing-Machine Co., 13…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Neale v. NealesSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Tremaine v. Hitchcock & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Sage v. . WoodinNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kimball v. LincolnIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- McArtee v. EngartIllinois Supreme Court · 1851
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Mellwood Distilling Co. v. HarperU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1908