Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0227-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Riddle, Esq. against Lessee of Findlay and others.
    
      Monday, October 16.
    Where judgment in ejectment had mo,“ Pleas>. and possession delivered after the expiration of tne term laid in the declaration; this Court permitted the term to be enlarged by the defendant in error on paying the costs of the writ of error.
    In Error.
    THIS was an ejectment in the Common Pleas of Frank-. J . lin county. The demise laid in the declaration expired in February, 1810. Judgment in favour of the lessors of the plaintiff was entered on the 15th February, 1808, in the Cir-1 . 1 cuit Court, from which the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, where the judgment was affirmed on the 21st December, 4.810, and the record remitted to the Court of Common Pleas, the Circuit Court having been abolished. On the 31st December, 1810, an Hab. fa. pass, issued, returnable to January, 1811, which was returned executed. The possession was delivered to the plaintiffs, who. have retained it ever since.
    
      MiCulloitgh and Dunlaps for the defendants in error,
    now moved for leave to amend, by enlarging the term in the declaration from seven, to twenty years. They cited Campbell v. Lessee of Gratz, 6 Binn. 115.
    
      S. Riddle, the plaintiff in error,
    who argued in propria persona, did not deny the power of the Court to grfint the amendment, if they were satisfied it would promote justice ; but observed, that the case was a hard one. He had given a large sum of money for the property, and having discovered a common recovery, which was unknown to him when the cause was tried, he was of opinion, that on another , trial, it would be determined in his favour.
    In reply it was said, that it must be taken for granted the ' merits of the case were with the plaintiffs, who had recovered in ejectment. They took out execution and obtained possession without delay.
   Per Curiam.

The amendment is allowed, on the defendants in error paying the costs of the writ of error.

The amendment being allowed, the plaintiff in error entered a discontinuance by leave of the Court.