¶1Were we to permit the amendment, the opposite party might lose the benefit of cross-examining; for the interrogatories exhibited to one, might not be proper to administer to another, from whom it might be *322wished to extract new evidence. The first part of the motion must, therefore, be denied; but you may take a new commission at your peril, without however, any stay of proceedings on the part of the plaintiff. .
3 Cai. Cas. 321
M'Vickar v. Woolcot
Decided November 15, 1805
New York Supreme Court · decided 1805-11-15
■ HOPKINS, in consequence of the death of a witness xo be examined on a commission sent to England, and sued out early in the last spring, moved, on behalf of the defendant, to amend by inserting the name of a new witness, who could prove the fact the testimony of the deceased would have gone to establish, or to be at liberty to issue a new commission.
Decided 1805-11-15