Woolley v. Wilber

New York Supreme Court

Woolley v. Wilber

4 Denio 570

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1847

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 4 Denio 570 (Woolley v. Wilber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woolley v. Wilber, 4 Denio 570 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1847).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.

The summons was right; it was personally served, and both parties appeared; but as the plaintiff made a mistake in the form of his declaration, by claiming damages beyond the jurisdiction of the justice, it is insisted that the cause was completely out of court, and therefore the justice had no power to allow the amendment. I think that is going too far. It may be conceded, that without an amendment there would have been a fatal objection to the judgment, although the verdict was only ten dollars. (Anon. 2 Mod. 206; Comyn’s Dig. County, C. 8; Yager v. Hannah, 6 Hill, 631.) But where the party has been regularly brought into court, and is present when the motion is made, I see no good reason why the pleadings may not be amended in a point touching the jurisdiction of the court, as well as in relation to any other matter. And if the justice had power, it was a very proper case for allowing the amendment to be made.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.

The summons was right; it was personally served, and both parties appeared; but as the plaintiff made a mistake in the form of his declaration, by claiming damages beyond the jurisdiction of the justice, it is insisted that the cause was completely out of court, and therefore the justice had no power to allow the amendment. I think that is going too far. It may be conceded, that without an amendment there would have been a fatal objection to the judgment, although the verdict was only ten dollars. (Anon. 2 Mod. 206; Comyn’s Dig. County, C. 8; Yager v. Hannah, 6 Hill, 631.) But where the party has been regularly brought into court, and is present when the motion is made, I see no good reason why the pleadings may not be amended in a point touching the jurisdiction of the court, as well as in relation to any other matter. And if the justice had power, it was a very proper case for allowing the amendment to be made.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Denio 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolley-v-wilber-nysupct-1847.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack