Case Name: Jeduthun Haskins v. Horace Ferris
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1851-09
Citations: 23 Vt. 673
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jeduthun Haskins v. Horace Ferris.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
Jeduthun Haskins v. Horace Ferris.
Amendment. Review.
In an action of trover, an amendment may be allowed, adding a count for additional property, which was taken at the same time with that originally mentioned in the declaration.
A party will not be allowed to review, after judgment has been twice rendered in his favor.
Trover, brought in the county of Wasiiinston. At the May Term, 1848, of the county court, the defendant moved to dismiss the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff was allowed to amend the declaration, by adding a count for the conversion of additional property, — which motion was overruled; and on trial at a subsequent term it was ascertained, that the property included in the additional count was taken by the defendant at the same time with that mentioned in the original declaration. At the May Term, 1850, the defendant moved, that he be allowed to enter a review of the suit. At a previous term a verdict was directed by the court for the plaintiff, for one cent damages; and at the May Term, 1850, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim. The review was denied by the court. The defendant, on trial, persisted in his motion to dismiss; but the motion was overruled. Exceptions by defendant.
■-for defendant.
Heaton 8? Reed for plaintiff

Opinion:
By the Court.
It seems to us, the amendment was correctly allowed in the present case. The rule laid down in Colby's Practice, that the party may always amend by more correctly describing the cause of action' " intended to be declared on," seems to us the true ground, upon which to place this subject. In the present case there can be no doubt, the plaintiff intended to describe all the articles taken, as they constitute but one taking, and the defendant could not have been misled by the omission. The amendment was then correctly allowed.
The review was correctly denied. This has been long settled.
Judgment affirmed.