East Tennessee Land Co. v. Leeson
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- American Surety Co. of New York v. Campbell & Zell Co. (1st Cir. 1905)
- Underhill v. Rutland Railroad (Vt. 1916)
- McEwen v. Harriman Land Co. (6th Cir. 1905)
- Campbell & Zell Co. v. American Surety Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1904)
- Gerding v. East Tennessee Land Co. (Mass. 1904)
- Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Butler (Mass. 1902)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is too plain for discussion that the allowance of the amendment did not entitle the defendants to treat the suit as begun at the time it was made.' Since the amendment the receiver is dominus litis, as he was before it was made, and the suit is being prosecuted for those who, by decree of the court appointing the receiver, are entitled to the proceeds, and for whose benefit it was originally brought. The substitution of the company for • the receiver as the party plaintiff was made to comply with the technicalities of our procedure. Such an amendment can be allowed to prevent the defence of the statute being set up to a new suit. Costelo v. Crowell, 134 Mass. 280.
Order disallowing amendment to answer affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.