Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

146 Mass. 378

Ham v. Kerwin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1888-03-03

Contract upon a promissory note purporting to be signed by the defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-03-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1961

4 state decisions

20188818901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Morton, C. J.

¶1Our statutes of amendments are very broad in their spirit and scope, allowing amendments at any time before judgment in a civil suit, in any matter either of form or substance, in any process, pleading, or proceeding in the suit which may enable the plaintiff to sustain the action or the defendant to make a legal defence. Pub. Sts. c. 167, §§ 41-44.

¶2The special denial of the genuineness of the signature to a written instrument declared on, required by the Pub. Sts. c. 167, § 21, if not in strictness a part of the pleadings, is an important proceeding in the case. It is to be filed “ within the time allowed for an answer,” which by leave of court may be at any time before trial. It falls within the letter and the spirit of the statute, and if the special denial is imperfect we can have no doubt that it is within the power of the court to allow an amendment to the same extent that it might allow an amendment to an answer, and upon such terms as it deems reasonable. Such an amendment is within the discretion of the court, and no exception lies to the exercise of this discretion.

¶3Exceptions overruled.

/146/mass/378 · .json · Public domain