History
  • No items yet
midpage
Chamberlain v. Crane
4 N.H. 115
Superior Court of New Hampshir...
1827
Check Treatment
By the court.

We entertain no doubt that judgment was entered upon the original count in this case by mistake instead of the amended count, and that justice requires that the record should be amended. And we are of opinion that the record may be legally amended. 19 Johns. 244, Mechanic's Bank v. Minthorne; 18 Johns. 502, Lansing v. Lansing; 17 ditto 86, Lee v. Curtiss; 14 ditto 219, Bank of Newburgh v. Seymour; 3 D. & E, 349, Rees v. Morgan; 2 Tidd’s Prac. 863; 1 Cowen’s Rep. 9; 5 Burr. 2730, Short v. Coffin; 4 Maule & Selwyn 94, Usher v. Dansey; 1 Taunt. 221, Mann v. Calow; 4 Taunt. 875, Halliday v. Fitzpatrick; 1 Wilson 61; 2 Strange 1209; 4 Burr. 1989. 10 Mass. Rep. 251; 1 Pickering 353.

We grant the leave to amend, but it is granted with a saving of all rights acquired by third persons under the judgment.

Case Details

Case Name: Chamberlain v. Crane
Court Name: Superior Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: May 15, 1827
Citation: 4 N.H. 115
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.