General

Jones qui tam, versus Ross

2 U.S. 1432 Dall. 143·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1792·PA

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Jones qui tam, versus Ross. THIS cause was set down for trial. Ingersoll, for the plaintiff, moved for liberty to amend the declaration, and stated it as a settled practice, even in qui tam actions. Moylan for the defendant : We cannot oppose the amendment, but we ask no imparlance. The plaintiff may amend at the bar, and we will go on to trial immediately. [MAJORITY] The Chief Justice, said, if you amend, the defendants will be intitled to an imparlance and costs. Rule accordingly.