Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.

D.C. Circuit

Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.

13 App. D.C. 267, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3213

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1898

DocketNo. 823

StatusPublished

This text of 13 App. D.C. 267 (Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tyler v. Mutual District Messenger Co., 13 App. D.C. 267, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3213 (D.C. Cir. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the-Court:

There is a motion in this case to dismiss the appeal, and that motion must be sustained.

[268]*268The appeal is taken from an order allowing an amendment to be made of the declaration after plea in abatement filed for misnomer of the defendant. This amendment was allowable under the general terms of Section 954, R. S. U. S., which declares'that the courts of the United States “ may at any time permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process or pleadings, .upon such conditions as the court shall, in its discretion and by its rules, prescribe.” This section is remedial, and, it has been held, must be liberally construed. Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39; Roach v. Hulings, 16 Pet. 319.

It has been held in many cases that amendments may be made in cases of the character of the present. For instancej it has been held that an amendment is allowable by striking out a name from a petition. Whitaker v. Pope, 2 Woods, 463. And it has been held that the plaintiff might amend on a plea of misnomer in the name of the defendant, which is this case. Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, 379; Scull v. Briddle, 2 Wash. C. C. 200. A'nd it has also been held, that an amendment may be made by striking out the name of a •defendant. Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story, 76 ; Tobey v. Claflin, 3 Sum. 379.

The power of amendment existing in the court below, its exercise was matter of discretion, and from the exercise of that discretion no appeal lies. This appeal must therefore be dismissed ; and it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Alvey

delivered the opinion of the-Court:

There is a motion in this case to dismiss the appeal, and that motion must be sustained.

[268]*268The appeal is taken from an order allowing an amendment to be made of the declaration after plea in abatement filed for misnomer of the defendant. This amendment was allowable under the general terms of Section 954, R. S. U. S., which declares'that the courts of the United States “ may at any time permit either of the parties to amend any defect in the process or pleadings, .upon such conditions as the court shall, in its discretion and by its rules, prescribe.” This section is remedial, and, it has been held, must be liberally construed. Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 39; Roach v. Hulings, 16 Pet. 319.

It has been held in many cases that amendments may be made in cases of the character of the present. For instancej it has been held that an amendment is allowable by striking out a name from a petition. Whitaker v. Pope, 2 Woods, 463. And it has been held that the plaintiff might amend on a plea of misnomer in the name of the defendant, which is this case. Nelson v. Barker, 3 McLean, 379; Scull v. Briddle, 2 Wash. C. C. 200. A'nd it has also been held, that an amendment may be made by striking out the name of a •defendant. Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story, 76 ; Tobey v. Claflin, 3 Sum. 379.

The power of amendment existing in the court below, its exercise was matter of discretion, and from the exercise of that discretion no appeal lies. This appeal must therefore be dismissed ; and it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 App. D.C. 267, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 3213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-mutual-district-messenger-co-cadc-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack