Colvin & Van Patten v. Corwin
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Onondaga common pleas. Colvin and Van Patten sued out two processes of summons against Cor-win in a justice’s court, returnable on the same day. The plaintiffs in each case declared for lottery tickets sold to the defendant, and the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error from the Onondaga common pleas. Colvin and Van Patten sued out two processes of summons against Cor-win in a justice’s court, returnable on the same day. The plaintiffs in each case declared for lottery tickets sold to the defendant, and the defendant pleaded the general issue. The parties agreed at a subsequent day to proceed to the trial of the two causes ; whereupon one of the causes was called on, and the defendant admitted that he had bought the lottery tickets alleged to have been sold to him by the plaintiffs. The second cause was then called. The defendant thereupon asked leave…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
The opinion was expressed, and we think upon satisfactory grounds, in the case of Brace v. Benson, 10 Wendell, 215, that justices’ courts possess substantially the same power to allow amendments in the proceeding in causes before them, that appertains to courts of record. The summons was considered amendable in that case. Here the defendant, at the adjourned day, asked to amend the pleadings by adding a new plea ; the application was in effect refused by the justice, which is usually allowed in courts of record with or without terms. A difficulty that is supposed to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holdgate v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by16 opinions
- Perry v. . DickersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Bendernagle v. CocksNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Continental Insurance v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Puckett v. National Annuity Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Bullard v. ThorpeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.