Case Name: Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1882-06
Citations: 62 N.H. 303
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.
Judges: Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 303–303

Head Matter:
Thompson v. Steam Mill Co.
An amendment of a declaration in an action at law, alleging a cause of action arising after the date of the writ, is not allowed.
Assumpsit, for logs sold and delivered. The plaintiff moved for leave to file a count in trover for the same logs, alleging the conversion on a day subsequent to the date of the writ.
Ladd Fletcher and Bingham 8f Aldrich, for the plaintiff.
Ray, Brew, Jordan Carpenter, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Clabii, J.
The cause of action alleged in the proposed amendment was not in existence at the date of the writ. An amendment, when made, relates back; and a writ after amendment stands as if the matter of the amendment had been incorporated into it at the time it was instituted. Whittier v. Varney, 10 N. H. 291, 303. A declaration, stating facts essential to the maintenance of the action to have happened after the date of the writ, is insufficient, and an amendment alleging a cause of action arising after the commencement of the suit is not allowed.
Amendment disallowed.
Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.