Ford v. Gardner
This text of 1 Johns. Cas. 243 (Ford v. Gardner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defect is thereby cured. The identity of the plaintiff below being ascertained, it was the duty of the defendant there to have availed himself of the variance before the -justice, instead of which he did not appear, and suffered judgment by default,
Judgment affirmed.
а) The statute of amendments, 2 R. S. 2d edit. 343, § 1, extending as It does to justice’s courts, id. 158, § 1, permits an amendment of the name of a plaintiff erroneously stated in the process ; Brace et al. v. Benson, 10 Wend. 213; but the amendment must be moved for and procured before proceeding to judgment. See Willard v. Missani, 1 Cowen, 37. 2 Cowen’s Treatise, 2d edit. 585, 586. Gordon v. Kennedy, 2 Binney, 291. State v. Collins, 2 Harrington, 216.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Johns. Cas. 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-gardner-nysupct-1800.