In this case, Walker, tbe defendant in error, sued Morrison and one Wyatt, on а joint and several promissory note, for tbe sum of one hundred and sixty dollars. Service was made of tbe original petition on both the defendants in tbe court below. After service, tbe plaintiff below obtained leаve
We are of opinion that the case shows a great abuse of the privilege of amendment. We are aware that the practice of the District Courts has bеen to permit a very liberal exercise of the right of parties to amend; and this court has, by many decisions, sanctioned a most liberal practice on the subject of amendments. But no decision of this court has gone to the extent of permitting a judgment by default, upon a monеyed demand, set up for the first time by an amendment, of which the party to be charged, has not had notice. In those cases in which this court has bеen the most indulgent towards amendments, the idea has been continually advanced that they will not be permitted to operate so as to deprive parties of any proper defence. We have recurrred to the cases of Ward v. Lathrop and another,
The assignment of errors in this case is somewhat vague, аnd does not very distinctly present any point for our consideration. But there is a suggestion of delay on the part of the defendant in error, which under the practice of the court, requires us to notice any еrrors presented by the record. For the reasons, therefore, аbove indicated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.