Emerson v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Vermont
A suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, in assumpsit, in the name of “ Emerson & Godfrey,” as partners in-trade. The names of the parties, composing the firm, were not given except as above stated.
Read the full summary
A suit was commenced before a justice of the peace, in assumpsit, in the name of “ Emerson & Godfrey,” as partners in-trade. The names of the parties, composing the firm, were not given except as above stated. The declaration was upon a note payable to “ Emerson & Godfrey in Co.” The writ and declaration, on motion, were amended by order of the justice, by inserting “John,” as the Christian name of said Emerson, striking out the name of Godfrey, and otherwise altering the declaration, so as to count on a note payable to John Emerson alone. On the writ and declaration, thus amended, judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
It is first objected that the proceedings of the county court, in dismissing the action, were erroneous, and that, if the amendment was improper, they could do no more than restore the suit to its foimer state, and the case of Baker v. Ripley, 1 Aik. R. 84, is relied on. It is doubtless true, that, in general, when an amendment has been improperly made by an inferior court, and that is disallowed or set aside, the case stands as though never amended, and this rule would apply to all amended declarations. If the amended declaration is rejected, the original one stands.— In the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Bowman v. StowellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1849
- Scully v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Francis F. Holt & Co. v. ThacherSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
- State v. LyonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1867
- Elliott v. ClarkSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1846
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.