Case Name: DEN ex dem. DENNY against SMITH
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1810-11
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 711
Docket Number: 
Parties: DEN ex dem. DENNY against SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
DEN ex dem. DENNY against SMITH.
Date of demise in declaration in ejectment, amendable.
This cause had been carried down to the circuit, but not tried.
Mr. Griffith moved, on the part of the plaintiff
for [*] leave to amend the declaration. In laying the demise, a mistake had been made by stating May, instead of July, when the title intended to be tried, had commenced in the lessor. He cited 1 Barnes, 26, where bills against an attorney had been amended through an original proceeding; he also cited, 1 8tra. 583; 3 John. 527; 3 Blae. Com. Jfi7; State Rep. 50, and other cases; he said that all were amendable while in paper; that the idea that a demise in ejectment was not amendable, was supported only by old cases; the modern practice was more liberal, especially in this State, where it had been practiced these twenty years.
Mr. L. H.. Stockton and Mr. Hunter, contra,
contended, 1st. That a demise in ejectment was not amendable.
2d. That it could not be amended after issue joined and cause once carried down to trial.
3d. That at all events; it could not be amended without something to amend by; that a declaration in ejectment was in the nature of process, which could not be amended without something to amend by; that the writ might be.amended by the precipe, and the declaration by the writ, but here, there was nothing to amend by. That all original proceedings were not amendable, because nothing to amend by; they cited, 1 Salk. 48; Barnes’ Notes, 16, 186; B Mod. 144; Tid’s Practice, BpB, 3.
S. 2 Halst. 121 Even after nonsuit, South. 850.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The only question is, whether there is any difference between a declaration in ejectment and a declaration in any other case. In respect to amendments, there are cases in the English books that countenance the distinction urged by the counsel for the defendant, grounded on the idea that a declaration in ejectment, being an original proceeding, is in the nature of process, and having nothing to amend by, therefore not amendable; but we think that the fictitious nature of the action so far as it respects the [*] pleadings, the reason of the thing, the modern practice and liberal policy of courts of law, especially in our own State, is against the distinction; let the declaration therefore be amended, on payment of costs.
Rule allowed unanimously.
Cited in Den, Williamson v. Snowhill, 1 Gr. 23.