Vancleef v. Therasson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ, to recovei the price of 40 firkins of lard sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, who at the time were partners in trade in the city of New York.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on an account annexed to the writ, to recovei the price of 40 firkins of lard sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants, who at the time were partners in trade in the city of New York. At the trial, before Wilde J., the plaintiff proved the sale and delivery, but it appeared that a negotiable note had been given by the defendants at the time, payable in four months, and that the plaintiff had given a receipt stating that the note was received in full for the lard. Whereupon the plaintiff moved for liberty to amend his writ by inserting a count on the note, but this…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker C. J.
gave an opinion of the Court in substance as follows. It is very clear that by the decisions of this Court, a few years since, in the cases of Little v. Little, in Essex, and Tappan v. -, in Hampshire, not reported, the amendment could not be allowed, for the note and the account were substantially different causes of action.1 What may be the *14.aw of New York on this point it is unnecessary to determine, for we are clear that the action may be sustained without the amendment. The contract, having been made in New York with reference to their laws, it is to have the same effect here…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sheehy v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Van Ostrand v. ReedNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Johnson v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- New-York State Bank v. FletcherNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Booth v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1829
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Roulland v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916