Denny v. Ward
Denny v. Ward
Opinion of the Court
It is clear that the first attachment was vacated. Carter’s writ as it stood when first served might have been abated for the non-joinder of L. Morse, and the alteration ought not to be allowed to injure a subsequently attaching creditor.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
See Vancleef v. Therasson, ante, 14, note 1; Brigham v. Este, 2 Pick. (2d ed.) 425, note 2; Bell v. Austin, 13 Pick. 90. In assumpsit against two 'or more, the plaintiff cannot amend by striking out the name of one of the defendants. Redington v. Farrar, 5 Greenl. R. 379. Neither in a writ of entry will the court grant leave to amend by striking out the name of one of the demandants, which has been improperly inserted. Treat v. M‘Mahon, 2 Greenl. 120. See Peck v. Sill, 3 Connect. R. 157; Ross v. Bates, 2 Root, 198; Freeman v. Beadle, 2 Root, 492; Minor v. Woodbridge, 2 Root, 274; Waldo v. Spencer, 4 Connect. R. 71; Burrows v. Stoddard, 3 Connect. R. 431; Burnham v. Savings Bank, 5 N. Hamp. R. 573; Sherman v. Proprietors of Connecticut River Bridge, 11 Mass. R. (Rand’s ed.) 338. But by Revised Stat. c. 100, § 7, in any action, founded on contract, brought against several persons, the plaintiff may discontinue as against any of the defendants, and proceed against the others.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Daniel Denny versus Thomas W. Ward
- Status
- Published