WALDEN EX DEM. DENN
v.
CRAIG
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In an ejectment action, the Supreme Court held that while a Circuit Court should have granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the declaration to extend the term of possession, a writ of error does not lie to review a Circuit Court's refusal to grant such an interlocutory amendment because it is a collateral decision on a motion rather than a final judgment on the merits.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the o'pi-niori of the Court.
Upon this casé two questions arise :
. 1. Ought the Circuit Court to have granted leave to the plaintiff to extend the term laid in his declaration ?
2. Does a writ of error lie to the refusal to gránt this amendment ?
* It has been truly said in argument, by the counsel for the plaintiff in. error, that the power of amendment is extended at least as far in the 32d section of the judiciary.act, as in any of the British statutes; and that there is no species of action to which the discretion of the Court in this respect ought to be more liberally applied than to the action of ejectment. The proceedings are. all fictitious, fabricated for the mere purposes of justice, and there is every reason for allowing amendments in matters of mere form. There is peculiar reason in this case, where the cause has been protracted, and the plaintiff kept out of possession beyond the term laid in the declaration, by the excessive delays practised by the opposite party. The cases cited by the plaintiff’s counsel in argument are, we think, full authority for the amendment which was asked in the Circuit Court, and we think the motion ought to have prevailed. But the course of this Court has not been in favour of the idea that a writ of error will lie to the opinion of a Circuit Court, granting or refusing a motion like this. No judgment in the cause is brought up by the writ, but merely a decision on a collateral motion, which may be renewed. For this reason, the writ" of error must be dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Phillips & Another v. Negley, 117 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1886)
-
Chapman v. Barney, 129 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1889)…laintiff. [*681] We do not think the first assignment of error well taken. Amendments are discretionary with the court below, and not reviewable by this court. Mandeville v. Wilson, 5 Cranch, 15; Sheehy v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch, 253; Walden v. Craig, 9 Wheat. 576; Chirac v. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. 280; Wright v. Hollingsworth, 1 Pet. 165; United States v. Buford, 3 Pet. 12; Matheson v. Grant, 2 How. 263; Ex parte Bradstreet 7 Pet. 634. We think the second point for plaintiff in error is well taken. Where there…
-
Burke v. Dulaney, 153 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1894)…urt, especially in cases in which it was sought to deprive bona fide holders of or parties to negotiable securities of the rights to which they were entitled according to the legal import of the terms of such instruments. Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 576, 587; Brown v. Wiley, 20 How. 442; Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564; Forsythe v. Kimball, 91 U. S. 291; Brown v. Spofford, 95 U. S. 474; Martin v. Cole, 104 U. S. 30; Burnes v. Scott, 117 U. S. 582; Falk v. Moebs, 127 U. S. 597. [*233] Several of thes…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch 11 (U.S. 1809)
- The Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria v. Hodgson, 6 Cranch 206 (U.S. 1810)
- Mandeville and Jamesson v. Wilson, 5 Cranch 15 (U.S. 1809)
- Woods & Bemis v. Young, 4 Cranch 237 (U.S. 1808)
- Resler v. Shehee, 1 Cranch 110 (U.S. 1801)
- Mountz and others v. Hodgson & Thompson, 4 Cranch 324 (U.S. 1808)