Thornton, Conrow & Co. v. Herring

Superior Court of Delaware

Thornton, Conrow & Co. v. Herring

10 Del. 154

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1876·Published

Opinion

The Court

held the variance to be material and ruled out the evidence offered.

Fulton then asked leave of the court to amend the declaration with a proper description of the note in that particular, and urged the application with much earnestness, as the statute of limitations would bar another action upon it, which, after argument and a suggestion from the counsel on the other side to that effect, the court granted leave to amend on condition that a juror should be withdrawn and the case continued, the costs of this term to abide the ultimate determination of the case.

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

The Court

held the variance to be material and ruled out the evidence offered.

Fulton then asked leave of the court to amend the declaration with a proper description of the note in that particular, and urged the application with much earnestness, as the statute of limitations would bar another action upon it, which, after argument and a suggestion from the counsel on the other side to that effect, the court granted leave to amend on condition that a juror should be withdrawn and the case continued, the costs of this term to abide the ultimate determination of the case.

Thornton, Conrow & Co. v. Herring, 10 Del. 154 (Del. Ct. App. 1876).

Pincite

10 Del. 154 (Thornton, Conrow & Co. v. Herring) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.