From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Coos
Jun 1, 1882
62 N.H. 303 (N.H. 1882)

Opinion

Decided June, 1882.

An amendment of a declaration in an action at law, alleging a cause of action arising after the date of the writ, is not allowed.

ASSUMPSIT, for logs sold and delivered. The plaintiff moved for leave to file a count in trover for the same logs, alleging the conversion on a day subsequent to the date of the writ.

Ladd Fletcher and Bingham Aldrich, for the plaintiff.

Ray, Drew, Jordan Carpenter, for the defendants.


The cause of action alleged in the proposed amendment was not in existence at the date of the writ. An amendment, when made, relates back; and a writ after amendment stands as if the matter of the amendment had been incorporated into it at the time it was instituted. Whittier v. Varney, 10 N.H. 291, 303. A declaration, stating facts essential to the maintenance of the action to have happened after the date of the writ, is insufficient, and an amendment alleging a cause of action arising after the commencement of the suit is not allowed.

Amendment disallowed.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Coos
Jun 1, 1882
62 N.H. 303 (N.H. 1882)
Case details for

Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.

Case Details

Full title:THOMPSON v. STEAM MILL CO

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Coos

Date published: Jun 1, 1882

Citations

62 N.H. 303 (N.H. 1882)

Citing Cases

Blanchard Co. v. Company

Nor did the defendant's assertion during the trial that it renounced all its obligations under the contract…

Ackerman v. Middleby

If it is conceded that the facts as reported show a liability on the part of the defendants to recompense the…