85 Pa. Super. 279 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1925
Argued March 2, 1925.
There was evidence produced on the trial of the action from which a jury — or in this case the referee — might find that the order for a carload of cantaloupes, a carload of potatoes and a carload of peaches constituted one contract: Weeks v. Crie,
The amendment to the plaintiff's statement permitted by the court after the testimony was closed amounted to nothing more than a formulation of the pleadings so as to conform to the testimony: Wall v. Royal Society of Good Fellows,
On the other hand, the amendment to the affidavit of defense offered by the defendant, more than a week after the testimony had been closed and the plaintiffs and their witnesses had gone back to their homes, was such an amendment as raised a new issue and would have required the reopening of the case and its trial upon a wholly different theory. No error was committed in refusing such an amendment at that stage of the proceedings: Williams v. Williams,
The assignments of error are overruled and the judgment is affirmed.