Pitkin v. Roby
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a count for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff, James A. Pitkin, to the defendant. The plaintiff moved to amend his writ by inserting the name of Benjamin R. Gilman as a plaintiff, and declaring for goods sold and delivered by James A. Pitkin and Benjamin R. Gilman as partners under the firm and style of Pitkin & Gilman.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a count for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff, James A. Pitkin, to the defendant. The plaintiff moved to amend his writ by inserting the name of Benjamin R. Gilman as a plaintiff, and declaring for goods sold and delivered by James A. Pitkin and Benjamin R. Gilman as partners under the firm and style of Pitkin & Gilman. The defendant objected to the amendment, but the same was allowed by the court, and the defendant excepted; and the question of law was reserved.
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
The Revised Statutes (ch. 186, sec. 18, Comp. Stat. 481) provide that “ no action shall be abated by the plea that there are other plaintiffs or defendants who ought to he joined therein, but such persons may be made parties to the action upon such terms as the court shall order, and shall be summoned, &c., and the action shall thereafter proceed as if their names were inserted in the original writ.” And the question is, whether the amendment proposed in this case can be properly made by force of its provisions. At *139common law, such amendments could not be made in actions of assumpsit. 1…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commission Co. v. RussNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Winslow v. MerrillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1834
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bryant v. WellsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Bryant v. WellsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875