TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gilman v. School District

Gilman v. School District in Meredith

Gilman v. Sch. Dist., 18 N.H. 215 (1846)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of New Hampshire · State Trial Courts
Decided
July 15, 1846
Judges
Woods
Citations
18 N.H. 215
Headnotes
An amendment will not Le granted, which, when made, would leave the writ defective on its face.
Summary
Assumpsit, for $200, for labor and services done and performed, and materials found and provided, by the plaintiff for the defendants, in building a school house, and for $200 had and received by the defendants to the plaintiff’s use. At the August term of this court, in 1844, the plaintiff moved to amend his declaration by inserting therein a new count, in which he avers, “ That said district, on the 31st day of May, A. D. 1842, by a certain writing obligatory, sealed with their seal and signed by Stephen Kenney, Samuel T. Cram and George W. Gilman, agents of said defendants, agreed with the plaintiff* that he should build for them a school house of twenty-five by eighteen feet, agreeably to a plan, &c., for one hundred and seventy-five dollars ; and the said Gilman thereby bound himself to build said house, on a spot selected by said district, &c., of suitable materials, in a workmanlike manner; to clapboard it, find shuttei’s, underpin, and finish the inside ready for a stove by the 1st day of December, then next and the said plaintiff avers that he did perform, &c. The defendants objected to the reception of said amendment, on the ground that the contract stated in it could not be the foundation of an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff offered his affidavit, by which it appeared that he lost said contract at a school district meeting, prior to the commencement of the action, and saw nothing more of it till it was returned to him after the commencement of this suit by a voter in the district, who told him he found it at the school house after said meeting. It was agreed by the parties that if, in the opinion of the court, the amendment is admissible, the same being made on such terms as the court shall direct, the case shall stand for trial.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Woods

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Woods, J.

Amendments in matters of form or substance may be ordered or granted by the court, and the party’s writ shall not abate for any error or mistake that such an amendment can cure. Rev. Stat., chap. 875, secs. 10, 11. For the purpose of substantial justice, therefore, and for preventing the mischief contemplated, the court will order or permit amendments to be made.

It is no part of the design of the statute to require amendments to be ordered that will not, when made, improve the pleader’s case. Such is the nature of the one for which the plaintiff sues.

An action of assumpsit cannot be maintained upon a contract under seal, nor can any action upon such a contract be joined with assumpsit on a parol contract. The writ would be bad on demurrer, after the amendment moved for should be made; and the court are not called upon, either by the statute or by the discretion vested in them in such cases, to allow it to be made. 1 Chit. Pl. 94; 1 Saund. Pl. & Ev. 110.

Motion to amend denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list