New York Supreme Court, 1799

Holmes v. Lansing

Holmes v. Lansing
New York Supreme Court · Decided January 15, 1799
1 Cole. Cas. 92
Holmes v. Lansing

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

There is a diveriity of pradlice between the King’s Bench and Common Pleas; *93.the Court will therefore adopt a rule of its own. As the amendment is for the benefit of the plaintiff, it is reafonable he ihould pay the coils of it: and it is equally reafonable that the defendant ihould have an opportunity to plead de novo.

The plaintiff therefore may amend upon payment of coils and giving an imparlance.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.