Hatfield v. Secor

Decided April 15, 1858

New York Court of Common Pleas · decided 1858-04-15

Appeal by defendants from an order at special term, denying a motion for leave to amend an answer. This action was brought, to recover a sum of money alleged to have been loaned to the defendants by William B. Hatfield, in his lifetime. The original answer denied the loan of money, and averred that WMiam.

Relies on Seeley v. Chittenden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1886

3 state decisions

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 →

Brady, J.

¶1— Amendments are in all cases matter of favor, and not of strict right (Graham’s Pr. 669. 2d ed.), and being addressed to the discretion of the court, no appeal can be taken from the order made on applications therefor (St. John v. West, 4 How. Prac. Rep. 331 ; Seeley v. Chittenden, 10 Barb. 303; Tallman v. Hinman, 10 How. 90 ; Tracy v. New York Steam Faucet Co., 1 E. D. Smith R. 357, citing and approving St. John v. West, supra), unless the certificate of the presiding judge at special term is procured, as provided by rule of this court of March 22d, 1851; which ivas not done in this caso.

¶2Appeal from the qrder of the special term dismissed, with costs.