Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Johns. Cas. 248

Holmes v. Lansing

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1800

New York Supreme Court · decided 1800-01-15

Emott moved to amend the declaration after plea pleaded, which. was granted. A question - then, arose Whether the: defendant was entitled both to an imparlance and to costs. The following cases, were cited, 1~ Sir. 950; 1 Dallas, 494.-2 Black. Rep. 785.. -

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1801

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1800-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1There seems to be some diversity of.practice in the.English courts' in this - respect;- This-.court will, therefore, establish-a rule of its -o.wn. As the. amendment is-a benefit to the plaintiff, it is reasonable "that he should pay the costs; and it is equally reasonable, that, the defendant, after Tin amendment, should be allowed to plead de nbvo.

¶2We are, therefore, of opinion that the' amendment be allowed, on payment of costs, and giving an imparlance.(b)

¶3Rule granted?-

¶4Stafford v. Green, 1 Johns. R. 505. Livingston v. Rogers, 1 Caines’ R. 584. Rogers v. Phinney, 1 Green. 1. See 2 Green. 270. 3 J. J. Marsh. 333. Anon. 2 Wash. C. C. 270. Though costs are generally imposed on a party, who asks to amend the pleadings/ yet iit a case where the error that required the amendment arose from the ¡irregularity of the practice" in. t¡ie courts of the state where the. action was brought, the court did not allow costs on. amendment. Lanning v. Dolph, 4 Wash. C. C. 630. See also Gra. Prac. 2d edit. 669, 670.

/1/johnscas/248 · .json · Public domain