Wilson v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant petitions for a new trial on several grounds:
First: — Because the court permitted the plaintiff against the defendant's objection, to file an amended declaration.
It contends that the amendment was not in a matter of form but of substance; and that the Judiciary Act, cap. 15, § 4, authorizes amendments in matters of form only. We do not so construe the statute. The language is: "The court may at any time permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process or pleadings, with or without terms, in the discretion of the court, or in pursuance of general rules." "Any…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SturtivantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
- State v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1888
- Mahan v. SmithermanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Snyder v. HarperWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. GirouardSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1989
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1990
- Woehrle v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- Dey v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Urbani v. RazzaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.