Case Name: Morrell and others, executors, &c. against Pixley; Same against Seaman and Reynold, bail, &c.
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1815-05
Citations: 12 Johns. 256
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morrell and others, executors, &c. against Pixley. Same against Seaman and Reynold, bail, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
Morrell and others, executors, &c. against Pixley. Same against Seaman and Reynold, bail, &c.
. A bail-piece in a cause, after an attempt. by the bail to Bttrmulev., was hot allowed- to be.amenrledvat the instance of the '-plaintiff, by striking out the words, iC 'trespass' on the case,” and inserting (he wordf/eKso as to make it confomrlo the action* in which the principal was, in fact, arrested, the plaintiff’s attorney ¿not:' having discovered the mistake, until after a suit against the bail.
i SLOSSON,. for the plaintiilfe, moved for leave to amend the-bail-piece filed in this, causé, by striking- oüt the words, “ Trespass on the cáse,” and inserting, in their place, the Word debt. The writ and declaration were in debt, and: special bail was put in, in June, 1813. Judgment was obtained in January term, 1-814, on Which a ca.' sa." was issued, and returned nonest inventus. In September following the suit was commenced against the bail, and' in February last, a declaration was filed, to which thé defendants, in- March last, pleaded nut tiel record.
It appeared' that in October or November last, one of thé -plaintiffs was informed of the mistake in the bail-piece; but the plaintiff’s attorney stated, that he did not know of it, until it was in-, timated to him, in April last, by the attorney for the defendant. It appeared, also, that some time after the bail-piece was filed, "the bail had proceeded to take their-principal, in: order to make a surréndferj but it appearing from the copies of the bail-piece, procured for that purpose, that'the bail was not in the-action in which he had been arrested, nothing further was done, and the principal ivas again set at large.
P, A. Jay, contra,
objected, that- this being á récognisance ."signed by the party, and acknowledged before a judge, could not be altered in this way, any more than a bond or contract.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This amendment cannot be allowed ;* especially after ah attempt of 'thé bail to surrender their principal, and when it might be to their prejudice. There appears also to have been a loches 'on the part df the plaintiffs, in not making (he application sooner.