Case ID: cole-cai-cas_1/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Holmes and another v. Lansing.
    
    EMOTT moved to amend the declaration after plea pleaded, which was granted, but a question now arose, whether the defendant is entitled both to an imparlance and to costs : vide Str. 950. Dallas, 465. where it is said he shall only have his election of one; but in 2 Blackst. Rep. 785. he had both.
   Per Curiam.

There is a diversity of practice between the king’s bench and common pleas; the court will, therefore, adopt a rule of its own. As the amendment is for the benefit of the plaintiff, it is reasonable he should pay the costs of it: and it is equally reasonable that the defendant should have an opportunity to plead de nova.

The plaintiff, therefore, may amend upon payment of costs and giving an imparlance.