Hughes v. Diamond Match Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
Action on the case (No. 144 to Feb. T. 1897.) An affidavit • made by the plaintiff was filed, alleging among other things, the following: “ That she is the plaintiff in the above stated action; that she was sixteen years of age on the twenty-seventh day of February, A. D. 1897; that she was employed, as stated in the declaration filed in the above stated cause, by Diamond Match Company, which company, during all the time of her employmant, was engaged in the business of…
Read the full summary
Action on the case (No. 144 to Feb. T. 1897.) An affidavit • made by the plaintiff was filed, alleging among other things, the following: “ That she is the plaintiff in the above stated action; that she was sixteen years of age on the twenty-seventh day of February, A. D. 1897; that she was employed, as stated in the declaration filed in the above stated cause, by Diamond Match Company, which company, during all the time of her employmant, was engaged in the business of manufacturing matches in the City of Wilmington and State of Delaware; that the said defendant company was, during all the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tore, C. J:—
We think this is not a matter of description, but that it is substituting and making an entirely new and distinct party. We therefore refuse the motion to amend.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hackett v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1933
- Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. ParishIndiana Court of Appeals · 1941
- Console Master Speaker Corp. v. Muskegon Wood Products Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1928
- Allen v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington RailroadSuperior Court of Delaware · 1918
- Console Master Speaker Corp. v. Muskegon Wood Products Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1928