Austin v. Ingham

Decided February 15, 1807

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1807-02-15

Suit on a promissory note. Thé defendant pleaded non as-sumpsit and payment, a set-off and the statute of limitations. After the jury were sworn, it was discovered that the plaintiff had not replied to the pleas, and that the issues were not joined.

Relies on Harner v. Fisher

Decided 1807-02-15

Yeates, J.

¶1Unquestionably the intention of the legislature was, that formal objections which do not go to the merits of the controversy, shall not be readily listened to. But I can discover their meaning no otherwise, than by their words. It is clear, that the expressions go no further than to permit an amendment of the declaration or statement, and of an alteration of the plea or defence ; and I do not feel myself warranted to extend them by construction.

Cited in 58 Pa. 453 in support of the proposition that amendments beyond the plea are as at common law, and to be tested by a legal discretion.

¶2The motion was denied ; and the jury were dismissed by the court from giving a verdict.