McQueston v. Young

Decided December 15, 1850

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1850-12-15

Motion, to amend the declaration in the plaintiff’s writ. The declaration alleged, that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of $75, for balance of account, according to the account annexed to the writ. The account annexed, contained no specification of the items of debt and credit from which the balance resulted, but was in this form: “ To amount due on account, $75.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1917

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 →

Bell, J.

¶1This is a loose and slovenly mode of declaring, only to be tolerated because of its frequent use. The plaintiff cannot proceed to trial without a specification or amendment; and upon a default, he can have no judgment without an actual assessment of damages, upon evidence laid before the court or a jury. The Court are not inclined to countenance this mode of declaring; and considering the necessity of an amendment or specification, as the fault of the plaintiff, will permit no amendment to be made or specification to be filed, except upon terms designed to discourage the practice.

¶2Leave to amend granted on terms.