3 N.H. 345
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Decided February 15, 1826
Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1826-02-15
This was a writ of entry. The tenant pleaded, in abatement of the writ, the infancy of the demandant, who sued ivithout a guardian or prochein amy. The demandant moved for leave to amend his writ, by inserting the name of a prochein amy. To this the tenant objected, and contended, that the writ was not amendable, in this respect, by any known rule of practice.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1826-02-15
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1926
7 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 →
¶1It is well settled, that it is a good plea in abatement of the writ, that the demandant or plaintiff, who sues without a guardian or next friend, is an infant. Chitty’s Pl. 436.—2 Saunders 117, f. note (1.)—1 Tidd’s Prae. 69.— *3467 Johnson 373, Schemerhorn vs. Jenkins.—2 Saunders 212.-Comyn’s Digest, Pleader 2 C. 1.
¶2But it is very clear, that the writ may be amended. 1 Cowen 33; Ex parte Scott.—2 Saunders 212, and notes.—1 Tidd’s Prac. 69—12.
¶3Leave to amend granted.