Hurd v. Chesley
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The declaration is as follows: “ In a plea of trespass for that the said John E. Chesley and Prank Dodge, on the 20th day of May, A. D. 1873, at said Rochester, with force and arms shot and killed a certain dog of the plaintiff, then and there found, and being of great value,” &c.
Read the full summary
The declaration is as follows: “ In a plea of trespass for that the said John E. Chesley and Prank Dodge, on the 20th day of May, A. D. 1873, at said Rochester, with force and arms shot and killed a certain dog of the plaintiff, then and there found, and being of great value,” &c. The plaintiff moved to amend his declaration by inserting the words “ having around his neck a collar of leather, with a brass plate attached thereto, with the name of said Paul A. Hurd, the owner of said dog, engraved thereon. The court, — Poster, C. J., — -denied the motion, and the plaintiff filed this bill of…
1Concurrence
If a dog with a collar around his neck were a different kind of animal from a dog without a collar, so that the amendment would describe a different subject-matter, perhaps it would be inadmissible. But a dog is neither more nor less than a dog, with or without a collar, and the amendment, instead of describing a different subject-matter, only avers a fact necessary to the maintenance of the action. It appears to me, therefore, that the amendment is clearly admissible.
SMITH, J. As the proposed amendment does not change the form of the action, and as the identity of the cause of action is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stevenson v. MudgettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Wiggin v. VeaseySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861