Case ID: scl_3/html/0455-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1804.
    Smith v. Executrix of Brisbane.
    Upon mil tiel record to scire facias on judgment, the plaintiff permite ted to amend at the trial, by inserting the words “ as administrator” of defendant’s testator, in the statement of the recovery, so as to con? form to the record produced in evidence. Vide 2 Bay, 557, S. C.
    
      Sci. fa. brought in the district of Sumter, before Grimke, J. Issue on the plea of mil tiel record. The record produced, was against the defendant’s testator, as “ administi ator of William Brisbane whereas, the sci. fa. stated a judgment against him, but not as administrator. The variance was objected to: whereupon it was moved, in behalf of the plaintiff, to amend the sci. fa., so as to make it conform to the record produced in evidence; which was ordered, on a rule to shew cause. The motion in this court was to reverse the order of the district court, and for leave to enter judgment for the defendant.
    Branding, in support of the motion,
    cited Buxom v. Hoskins, 6 Mod. 263. There is a difference where the writ is bad and vicious on the face of it, and where it is good in the frame of it, but not fitted to the particular purpose; in the latter case, where the writ is good in itself, but not ad idem, it is not amend, able, but the party may take out another wiit pending the first.
    Simons, contra.
    
    If it is allowed to amend a process viemus on the face of it, why should it not be allowed to amend a process which is faultless on the face of it, but not ad idem, and calculated to meet the case ? The' reason must be as good, applied to .me case, as to the other. Our courts are more liberal, in allowing amendments to advance justice, where no hardship is thereby oc. casioued, or inconvenience suffered, but avoided, than the English couits formerly were. Our original writs issue out of our law courts, where amendments are made; and the same technical rigor that obtains in England, is not observed with us. The general convenience, or inconvenience, which will follow from the practice, one way or the other, is the true ground on which the docisiorr should be made, and not the authority of an old and doubtful English case.
   The court

(all the judges present, except Lee)

were of opinion, that the district court had properly decided ; and that the plaintiff was intitled to amend his writ, by adding “ administrator of William Brisbane,” so as to make it conform to the record produced. See Str. 890. Cro. Jac. 372. Cro. Car. 162. 1 Salk. 52. 1 Com. Rep. 418.