Harvey v. Cutts

51 Me. 604
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 Me. 604 (Harvey v. Cutts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvey v. Cutts, 51 Me. 604 (Me. 1865).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Appleton, C. J.

The writ in this case contained an order to "take the body,” &c., and was served by summons.

" The person and caso can be rightly understood” notwithstanding the order to arrest. In Matthews v. Blossom, 15 Maine, 400, the Court allowed a writ of original summons to be changed to a writ of attachment. The amendment allowed in that case related to the form of the writ, as established by law, and ivas properly granted. It is not like the case of Houghton v. Stowell, 28 Maine, 215, where it was attempted to change the form of action; nor that of Roach v. Randall, 45 Maine, 438, where the Court refused to allow the name of one of the plaintiffs to be stricken out; nor that of Tibbetts v. Smith, 19 Maine, 204, where a 'wrong seal was affixed. The amendments in these and similar instances cited in the able argument of the defendant’s counsel, were deemed matters of substance.

The terms upon which an amendment is to be allowed are at the discretion of the presiding Judge. It must be presumed that such discretion was rightly exercised. Nothing indicates the contrary. . _ Exceptions overruled.

Cutting, Davis, Kent and Walton, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Bartlett v. Chisholm
86 A.2d 166 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Me. 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-cutts-me-1865.