Case ID: ohio_3/html/0456-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

D. Greene v. J. Dodge and E. Coggswell.
    Motion to amend a general judgment at a subsequent term, so as to make it a judgment for defect in declaration, refused.
    This is the same cause reported in 2 Ohio, 430. It now came before the court upon a motion to amend the judgment, entered generally for the defendants, at December te^pi, 1826, and enter it specially, as predicated upon a defect in the declaration.
    Ewing, in support of the motion,
    insisted, that the judgment actually pronounced, was not upon the case agreed, but upon a defect in the declaration, and that it ought to have been so entered, because, if' so entered, the plaintiff could sue another, but being general, it operated as a bar. He maintained that the object of justice required the amendment to be made, and that the court had power to allow it. He cited 6 Durnf. & East, 1, and 7 Id. 699.
    Goddard and Nye, contra,
    denied the power of the court to allow the amendment. They cited 1 Bac. 164, 166; amen, and Jeo. F. Cro. Eliz. 407; 1 Ohio, 375; Doug. 703.
   Motion refused.