Case Name: Holmes and another v. Lansing
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1800-01
Citations: 1 Cole. & Cai. Cas. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: Holmes and another v. Lansing.
Judges: 
Reporter: Coleman & Caines' Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 96–96

Head Matter:
Holmes and another v. Lansing.
EMOTT moved to amend the declaration after plea pleaded, which was granted, but a question now arose, whether the defendant is entitled both to an imparlance and to costs : vide Str. 950. Dallas, 465. where it is said he shall only have his election of one; but in 2 Blackst. Rep. 785. he had both.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There is a diversity of practice between the king's bench and common pleas; the court will, therefore, adopt a rule of its own. As the amendment is for the benefit of the plaintiff, it is reasonable he should pay the costs of it: and it is equally reasonable that the defendant should have an opportunity to plead de nova.
The plaintiff, therefore, may amend upon payment of costs and giving an imparlance.