Ward v. Stevenson

15 Pa. 21, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 285
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 15, 1850
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 Pa. 21 (Ward v. Stevenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ward v. Stevenson, 15 Pa. 21, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 285 (Pa. 1850).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Rogers, J.

The affidavit is sufficiently positive that the mistake of the name and addition of the plaintiff was the error of the attorney who wrote the precipe. That it is not proved by the attorney who committed the mistake, is nothing, as all that is required, according to the case of Harbach v. Boggs & Co. 6 Barr 377, is to satisfy the conscience of the court, who, in their discretion, may act on ex-parte proof, or otherwise. The amendment is made under the provisions of the act of the 16th Feb. 1846, which authorizes amendments of the record, when it shall appear to them, by any sufficient evidence, that a mistake has been made in the Christian or surname of any party, plaintiff or defendant. The words are in the disjunctive, but, as it is a highly remedial act, entitled to a liberal and benign interpretation, according to the case cited, a mistake in both may come within its healing provisions. The design of the act is to prevent a party being turned out of court for the error of his counsel; and when that- error may be corrected, without injury to a single human being, why should it not be done ? The court, of course, will confine the remedy to a clear mistake, and will not suffer it to be perverted to an entire change of the real parties for and against whom suit is brought. The act contains no restriction when the amendment may be made. The court was right in amending the record, by making the name Augustus read Augustine, and by striking out the word Jr. from the name. ’

The omission to insert any sum in damages is cured by verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Geraci v. Martin Trucking, Inc.
72 Pa. D. & C.2d 248 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1976)
Bloom v. B'Nai Emanual
56 Pa. D. & C.2d 639 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1971)
Fuel City Mfg. Co. v. Waynesburg Products Corp.
112 A. 145 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Pa. 21, 1850 Pa. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-stevenson-pa-1850.