Bellah v. Hilles
Superior Court of Delaware
moved to amend the original process, so that the title of the plaintiff would be “William F. Seeds for use of Edward T. Bellah, Trustee.” At the time of said motion the defendant had appeared by putting in special bail; the declaration was filed.
Read the full summary
moved to amend the original process, so that the title of the plaintiff would be “William F. Seeds for use of Edward T. Bellah, Trustee.” At the time of said motion the defendant had appeared by putting in special bail; the declaration was filed. It was contended by Mr. Hilles that it being a proceeding by foreign attachment which was purely a statutory remedy, it had been uniformly held that the statutory proceedings must be strictly adhered to, and that there was no statutory authority for amendment in such case.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
held that as foreign attachment was only to compel appearance and that as the defendant had appeared by putting in special bail, under the express terms of the statute, the case proceeded as in cases commenced by summons, and that the plaintiff *35was therefore entitled to amend.
Waples and wife vs. McIlvaine’s Admr., 5 Harr., 381; McColley vs. Collins, 5 Harr., 391; Benjamin’s Executors vs. Boyce, 3 Harr., 315; Collins vs. Townsend, 2 Harr., 317.
Amendment allowed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Canaday v. Superior CourtSupreme Court of Delaware · 1955
- Brainard v. CanadaySuperior Court of Delaware · 1955
- Hackett v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1933
- Console Master Speaker Corp. v. Muskegon Wood Products Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1928
- Lutz v. Roberts Cotton Oil Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.