Ambler v. Archer

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Ambler v. Archer

2 App. D.C. 41, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 3070

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 5, 1893

DocketNo. 13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 App. D.C. 41 (Ambler v. Archer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ambler v. Archer, 2 App. D.C. 41, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 3070 (D.C. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

After this case was decided by this court, and the decree passed dismissing the bill without prejudice, the appellants made application for a modification of the decree, so they could obtain leave to amend their bill of complaint, to obviate and remove the objections and difficulties pointed out in the opinion of the court, to maintaining the present bill of complaint. But this application cannot be granted. There is nothing in the case to amend by, or which can be so shaped by amendment as to make a case maintainable in this jurisdiction. The matters suggested to be incorporated into the amended bill proposed would make a new case, and not matter simply to be added to or in modification of the allegations of the present bill. If the appellants desire to avail themselves of the matters suggested as amendment to the present bill, the best and most regular mode of procedure will be by filing an original bill. We do not, however, de[45]*45sire to be understood as intimating any opinion as to the effect of the new matter proposed to be incorporated as amendments of the present bill. That question can only arise when such new matter is presented in an original bill.

The motion to modify the decree with leave to amend the original bill must be refused.

Motion denied and petition dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

After this case was decided by this court, and the decree passed dismissing the bill without prejudice, the appellants made application for a modification of the decree, so they could obtain leave to amend their bill of complaint, to obviate and remove the objections and difficulties pointed out in the opinion of the court, to maintaining the present bill of complaint. But this application cannot be granted. There is nothing in the case to amend by, or which can be so shaped by amendment as to make a case maintainable in this jurisdiction. The matters suggested to be incorporated into the amended bill proposed would make a new case, and not matter simply to be added to or in modification of the allegations of the present bill. If the appellants desire to avail themselves of the matters suggested as amendment to the present bill, the best and most regular mode of procedure will be by filing an original bill. We do not, however, de[45]*45sire to be understood as intimating any opinion as to the effect of the new matter proposed to be incorporated as amendments of the present bill. That question can only arise when such new matter is presented in an original bill.

The motion to modify the decree with leave to amend the original bill must be refused.

Motion denied and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 App. D.C. 41, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 3070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambler-v-archer-dc-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack