Case Name: Proprietary against Pearce
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1764-04
Citations: 1 Md. 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: Proprietary against Pearce.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 1
Pages: 223–224

Head Matter:
APRIL TERM, 1764.
Proprietary against Pearce.
DEBT on an administration bond 5 plea non est factum, and issue joined. The bond was dated 17th August, 1727_
The declaration set forth a bond dated 17th June, 1727.
Garnet moved to amend the narr. by the bond 1 and to justify the amendment, he cited 1 Barnes, 3.6,7. 2 Barnes, 4. Cro. Car. 147. Co. Prac. 26. 3 Lon. 347. Fitzg. 193. The determination of Courts on matters of practice are, that the Courts have a discretionary power in regulating their own practice. By 12 Mod. 442. the plaintiff on an amendment may pay costs or grant an imparlance.
Hollyday contra.
The Courts will not countenance amendments, where the mistake proceeds from some other cause than accident. In 1 Stra. 76. 1 Raym. 189, 190. the reason why amendments were denied, is because the plaintiff had' his deed before him. As to the case in Barnes it was owing to the mistake, and in the case in Levinz, the amendment was allowed through necessity, the year for beginning the action being passed. There is an election in the defendant to pay costs or have an imparlance. 2 Stra. 950. 2 Barnes, 58.
Garnet, in reply.
Amendments are more common now, than when the case in Raymond was reported. The declaration there, was good without any amendment, but it is not so here; the necessity of it is apparent. As to the case in 1 Stra. 76. the question of amendment was not in consideration with the Court, but whether the plaintiff should change his rule from a leave to discontinue, to one to amend.

Opinion:
The motion did not prevail, the Chief Justice saying that the defendant would be barred of this defence, it being too late to have an imparlance,
Jennings's notes.