Diamond v. Williamsburgh Insurance
New York Court of Common Pleas
The defendant moved, at the Special Term, to amend his answer by setting up anew and additional defense. The plaintiff insisted that the court had-no power to allow it,/and relied upon the decision of the general term of the Superibr Court, in the case of Woodruff v. Dickie (31 How. Pr. 164; 5 Robt. 619).
1Opinion of the Court
Daly!, Ch. J.
—I entertain no doubt of the power of the court to allow a defendant to amend his answer before trial, by setting up an additional defense, if it be in furtherance of justice. Under the old practice, a plaintiff would not be allowed to amend his declaration if the amendment would change the nature of the action (Cope v. Marshall, Sayre, 234; Duchess of Marlborough v. Wiginan, Fitzg. 193). But the rule was not so strict in respect to amending pleas, or adding a new an«| different plea as a defense to the action, the reason given being that the plaintiff, if he has misconceived the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Harrington v. SladeNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Beardsley v. StoverNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Trinder v. DurantNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Woodruff v. DickieNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- McQueen v. BabcockNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- McCleary v. BabcockIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
- Robertson v. RobertsonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1880
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1889
- Betts v. KridellCity of New York Municipal Court · 1887
- In re Patterson-MacDonald Shipbuilding Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1923
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.