Husted v. Town of Greenwich
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in ERROR. This was a petition for a highway, brought by Husled and others against the town of Greenwich. The petition was originally addressed to the county court of Fairfield county, “ sitting as a court of chanceryand was returned to that court, at its term in November, 1834. It was continued to the next term, in January, 1835, when the petitioners, after answer made by the respondents, moved the court for permission to amend their petition, by erasing therefrom the words…
Read the full summary
in ERROR. This was a petition for a highway, brought by Husled and others against the town of Greenwich. The petition was originally addressed to the county court of Fairfield county, “ sitting as a court of chanceryand was returned to that court, at its term in November, 1834. It was continued to the next term, in January, 1835, when the petitioners, after answer made by the respondents, moved the court for permission to amend their petition, by erasing therefrom the words “sitting as a court of chancery,” alleging, that these words were inserted by mistake of the attorney by whom the…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
1. It is claimed, that the county court erred, in allowing an amendment of the petition, by erasing the words, “ sitting as a court of chancery." The statute provides, that “ the plaintiff may amend any defect, mistake, or informality in the writ or declaration”-“ provided such amendment shall not change the form or ground of action.” Stat. 44. tit. 2. s. 33.
*386It is not pretended, that the form or ground of action was changed. If the amendment was a matter within the discretion of the court, the allowance or disallowance of it can furnish no ground for a writ of error. United States v. Buford,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Town of Huntington v. BirchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Standard Cement Co. v. Windham National BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Rice v. Douglas CountyOregon Supreme Court · 1919