Smart v. Tetherly
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. H. owed the plaintiff a balance of $100 on a bill of lumber. The defendant owed H. more than that sum for labor.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. H. owed the plaintiff a balance of $100 on a bill of lumber. The defendant owed H. more than that sum for labor. H. gave the plaintiff an order for that amount on the defendant, and it was mutually agreed by the three parties that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the amount of the order, and apply that sum on his indebtedness tó H. The plaintiff was allowed to amend his declaration by adding a special count on the defendant’s acceptance of the order, and the defendant excepted. The cause was tried on the amended count, and the plaintiff had a…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
An amendment which' changes the cause of action, or introduces a cause of action entirely new and different from that stated in the original declaration, is not allowed. Butterfield v. Harrell, 3 N. H. 202; Goddard v. Perkins, 9 N. H. 488; Stevenson v. Mudgett, 10 N. H. 340; Melvin v. Smith, 12 N. H. 462; Moses v. B. & M. R. R., 32 N. H. 524, 534; Wood v. Folsom, 42 N. H. 70. The original declaration was for goods sold and delivered. The amendment proposed was a new count, on the acceptance of an order by the defendant given to the plaintiff by a third person, H. If the defendant accepted the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Clinical Lab Products, Inc. v. MartinaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1981