Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Binn. 588

Gratz v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 1, 1809

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1809-04-01

A CCOUNT render against the executors of Simon, wh~ was stated by the writ to have been the bailiff and receiv~ er of Michael Gràtz. Pleas, never bailiff or receiver, and mliv accounted.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1809-04-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1836

5 state decisions

201809181018201830decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Amendment of a declaration in account render permitted, by adding to a count which charged the defendants' testator as bailiff and receiver of the plaintiff, a count charging him as bailiff &c. of the plaintiff as surviving partner of A. although the writ corresponded with the first count.

¶2Raule on a former day obtained a rule to shew cause why the declaration should not be amended by inserting a count in which the plaintiff was described as ~surviving partner, and his interest as having been held by him jointly with a certain Barnard Gratz deceased; and now in support of the rule, he ci• ted Slipper v. Stid~~tone (a), Hancock v. Hayman (b), French v. Andrade (c), and Ditchburn v. Spracklin (d).

¶3Phillzps contra, urged that the new count would be a vari~ ance from the writ, and would put the defendants to the neces sity of meeting a different allegation from that which they came prepared to encounter.

¶4But the court without difficulty made the rule absolute; observing, in answer to the last suggestion of Phillips, that a continuance would be granted if the defendants were in danger of a surprise.

¶5Rule absolute.*

/1/binn/588 · .json · Public domain