226 Pa. 230 | Pa. | 1910
Opinion by
This suit was brought within the statutory period by the father while the name of the mother was added by amendment more than a year after the expiration of the time in which the action must be instituted under the statutes. The first assignment challenges the correctness of the ruling of the court in permitting the amendment. The right to add the name of a husband, or of a wife, by way of amendment after the expiration of the statutory period, if either one had properly brought suit within the time limited, is no longer an open question. It has been squarely ruled in several recent cases: Waltz v. R. R. Co., 216 Pa. 165; Holmes v. R. R. Co., 220 Pa. 189; Bracken v. R. R. Co., 222 Pa. 410.
This is conceded by the learned counsel for appellant, but it is argued with great subtleness that the rule of these cases cannot be invoked under the facts of the case at bar. It is
Under these circumstances the case was for the jury, and we find no reversible error in the submission.
Judgment affirmed.