Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co.
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
I have before me the petition of the complainants requesting permission to amend the bill of complaint in this cause.
The power of this court to allow pleadings to be amended is inherent and discretionary in character. In general the power is exercised with liberality rather than with rigid precision.Codington v. Mott, 14 N.J. Eq. 430; Fodor v. Kunie, 92 N.J. Eq. 301; 112 Atl. Rep. 598. Like most, if not all, instances of discretionary authority, the power, however, is not boundless and illimitable. Its exercise has become circumscribed by certain applicable considerations which have been…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hardin v. BoydSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Fodor v. KunieNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1920
- Pollack v. BowmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1946
- Codington v. MottNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1862
- Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950