Gratz v. Phillips

1 Binn. 588
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 1, 1809·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Amendment of a declaration in account render permitted, by adding to a count which charged the defendants' testator as bailiff and receiver of the plaintiff, a count charging him as bailiff &c. of the plaintiff as surviving partner of A. although the writ corresponded with the first count.

Raule on a former day obtained a rule to shew cause why the declaration should not be amended by inserting a count in which the plaintiff was described as ~surviving partner, and his interest as having been held by him jointly with a certain Barnard Gratz deceased; and now in support of the rule, he ci• ted Slipper v. Stid~~tone (a), Hancock v. Hayman (b), French v. Andrade (c), and Ditchburn v. Spracklin (d).

Phillzps contra, urged that the new count would be a vari~ ance from the writ, and would put the defendants to the neces sity of meeting a different allegation from that which they came prepared to encounter.

But the court without difficulty made the rule absolute; observing, in answer to the last suggestion of Phillips, that a continuance would be granted if the defendants were in danger of a surprise.

Rule absolute.*

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

Gratz v. Phillips, 1 Binn. 588 (Pa. 1809).

1 Binn. 588 (Gratz v. Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coxe v. Tilghman
1 Whart. 282 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)
Diehl v. M'Glue
2 Rawle 337 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1830)
Bixler v. Kunkle
17 Serg. & Rawle 298 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1828)
Franklin ex rel. Gross v. Mackey
16 Serg. & Rawle 117 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1827)
Bogart v. M'Donald
2 Johns. Cas. 219 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)