Case ID: cole-cas_1/html/0092-02.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 vs. Lansing.
    EMOTT moved to amend the declaration after plea pleaded, which was granted, but a queftion now arofe, whether the defendant is entitled both to an imparlance and to coils: vide Str. 950. Dallas 465. where it is faid he fhall only have his election of one; but in 2 Blackft. Rep. 785. he had both.
   Per Curiam.

There is a diveriity of pradlice 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 reafonable he ihould pay the coils of it: and it is equally reafonable that the defendant ihould have an opportunity to plead de novo.

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