Tassey v. Church
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit by Church, M’Vay, and Gordon, for the use of James T. M’Vay and Franklin M. Gordon against John Tassey and Samuel Church, lately trading under the firm of Tassey and Church. The declaration was on the common money counts.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. This was an action of assumpsit by Church, M’Vay, and Gordon, for the use of James T. M’Vay and Franklin M. Gordon against John Tassey and Samuel Church, lately trading under the firm of Tassey and Church. The declaration was on the common money counts. After the jury were sworn, the court, on motion of the plaintiffs, permitted the declaration to be amended, by substituting $32,000 in the place of $1500 in the various counts, and by altering the amount of damages so as to correspond with the same. To this the defendants excepted. On the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
— The first error assigned is, that the court erred in permitting .the amendment of the declaration by substituting $32,000 in the place of $1500 in the various counts, and by altering the amount of damages so as to correspond with the same. Of the power of the court below to allow such an amendment we entertain no doubt. It did not change the cause of action, but merely the amount which the plaintiff alleged to be due. . Indeed, the amount alleged in indebitatus assumpsit on account stated as the sum due is so little regarded that it is…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Armstrong & Latta v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Roebling's Sons Co. v. American Amusement & Construction Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Farmers' & Mechanics' Insurance v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1858
- Peters's EstateSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Hogg v. OrgillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.