(DOWNLOAD) "Woodham v. State" by Mississippi Supreme Court # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Woodham v. State
- Author : Mississippi Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 18, 2001
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
Action on Open Account — Amendment of Complaint to State Cause of Action on Account Stated — Amendments in Discretion of Court — Objection to Filing Amended Pleading Waived by Answer, in Absence of Motion to Strike. Action on Account — Statute Requiring Plaintiff to Furnish to Defendant Copy of Account Inapplicable to Action on Account Stated. 1. The provision of section 9167, Revised Codes 1921, that if plaintiff in an action on an account does not within five days after demand by defendant for a copy of the account (or items of account) furnish it, he shall be precluded from giving evidence thereof, has no application to an action on an account stated. Same — Cause of Action on Open Account Provable by Evidence of Account Stated. 2. A cause of action on an open account may be proved by evidence of an account stated. Pleadings — Amendments — Matter of Discretion of District Court. 3. The matter of permitting amendments of pleadings lies within the sound discretion of the district court, and the rule is to allow and the exception to deny them. Page 118 Same — Filing Amended Complaint — Absence of Objection or Motion to Strike — Answer Waives Objection. 4. Where no objection is made to the filing of an amended complaint and no motion interposed to strike it from the files, any objection is waived by answering. Action on Account — Amendment of Complaint by Pleading Account Stated — Permission to Amend Held not Abuse of Discretion. 5. In an action on an open account defendant demanded an itemized statement of the account under section 9167, supra, which was not furnished, but instead plaintiff asked for and obtained leave to amend; the amended complaint was based upon an account stated. The cause was tried more than a year thereafter. Held, as against the contention of defendant that the amendment stated a cause of action differing from the original pleading and had been improperly allowed, that, both the original and the amended pleadings having referred to the same transaction and each cause of action having been for the recovery of the same indebtedness arising therefrom, the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the amendment to be made.