Clifford v. Coleman

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Clifford v. Coleman

5 F. Cas. 1053, 13 Blatchf. 210, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1292

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedDecember 7, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 5 F. Cas. 1053 (Clifford v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clifford v. Coleman, 5 F. Cas. 1053, 13 Blatchf. 210, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1292 (circtsdny 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

An application to amend the bill after replication and the production of evidence ought to be accompanied by very satisfactory proof that the proposed amendment could not, with reasonable diligence, have been sooner introduced into the bill. The amendment asked for is to add as parties defendant George H. New-bold and Susanna Newbold individually and as executrix of John A. Newbold, deceased. Upon the case, as presented to me on this application, 1 am satisfied that the complainant was in a position to make the proposed amendment, certainly before the replication was filed, and that he ought not now to be allowed to change his case, according to the rules governing amendments, at such a stage of the cause. Motion denied.

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

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

An application to amend the bill after replication and the production of evidence ought to be accompanied by very satisfactory proof that the proposed amendment could not, with reasonable diligence, have been sooner introduced into the bill. The amendment asked for is to add as parties defendant George H. New-bold and Susanna Newbold individually and as executrix of John A. Newbold, deceased. Upon the case, as presented to me on this application, 1 am satisfied that the complainant was in a position to make the proposed amendment, certainly before the replication was filed, and that he ought not now to be allowed to change his case, according to the rules governing amendments, at such a stage of the cause. Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 F. Cas. 1053, 13 Blatchf. 210, 1875 U.S. App. LEXIS 1292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-coleman-circtsdny-1875.