Case ID: del_6/html/0459-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Woolman and John W. Sullivan, trading as Woolman & Sullivan, v. Jonathan Zebley and Daniel Morris, trading as Zebley & Morris.
    Leave to' amend a replication will not be granted after the plaintiff has closed his testimony, and the defendant has proceeded to examine witnesses in support of his plea, to enable the plaintiff to take advantage of such proof, by the amendment asked for.
    Declaration in assum/psit. Plea, release. Replication that the release was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. After the jury had been sworn and the plaintiffs had closed their testimony, and the defendants were proceeding with the examination of their witnesses, and had proved the execution of the release from the plaintiffs to the defendants, and its subsequent loss, but were unable to state from recollection the terms and conditions of it, the counsel for the plaintiffs asked the leave of the Court to withdraw and amend their replication to the plea of release, so as to traverse the plea generally, without replying per fraudem, &c.
    
      Patterson, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Gordon, for the defendants.
   By the Court:

The application to amend the replication at this stage of the trial comes too late, after the plaintiffs have closed their testimony and the defendants have proceeded to offer evidence on the very point which the plaintiffs now propose to take advantage of by an amendment of their replication.