Goodwin v. Hannah
Goodwin v. Hannah
Opinion of the Court
In this case there was, on the part of the plaintiff, a joinder in demurrer, but afterwards, without argument, an acknowledgment of the insufficiency of the declaration, and a motion to amend. The defendant complains not of surprise, nor of delay, nor of any circumstances shewing that the discretion of the Circuit Judge was injudiciously exercised; but maintains that the demurrer being sustained when the case was called, whether by the opinion of the Court expressed after argument, or by the submission of the plaintiff, there was such a decision of the issue as precluded subsequent amendment. For this he relies upon the case of Moore v. Burbage, where it is said, “ after a joinder in general demurrer and judgment thereon, it may be laid down as a general rule, that an amendment will not be allowed.” Judgment, used in this extract, refers to the decision of the Court, and not to the subsequent entry of it, made in the record ; but in that case, reasons are given why an amendment should not there have been allowed, to wit, that unjust delay of the plaintiff would have ensued, and that, plainly, the plea which the defendant wished to introduce by amendment, could not have been sustained by the facts. Sufficient reasons will be seen to have caused the refusal of leave to amend, when a demurrer had been sustained after solemn argument, in the case of Hamilton v. Wilson, and probably such reasons existed in most other cases where instances of
The motion is dismissed.
Motion refused.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.