
    Isaac Weaver Eby vs. Concord Heights Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware.
    Pleading—Amendment—Different Cause of Action.
    Under Rev. Code 1852, amended to 1893, p. 850, c. 112, § 15, declaring the form of action to be amendable, the court, on written motion by plaintiff, stating that he had mistaken the form of action suited to his claim, may grant leave to amend from case to covenant.
    
      (March 5, 1914.)
    Judges Boyce and Rice sitting.
    
      Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., for plaintiff.
    
      Frank L. Speakman for defendant.
    Superior Court, New Castle County,
    March Term, 1914.
    
      Action on the Case (No. 90, March Term, 1914) by Isaac Eby against the Concord Heights Company. Motion to amend form of action allowed.
    Counsel for plaintiff, at the appearance term, now comes by his written motion and says that he has mistaken the form of action suited to his claim in the above stated cause, and moves that he be permitted to amend the form of action from case to that of covenant, the latter form of action being suited to his claim.
   Per Curiam:

The motion is granted. Ennis v. Ennis, 5 Harr. 390; Smith v. Commercial Fire Ins. Co., No. 86, May Term, New Castle County, 1899 (unreported) in which the action was changed from “covenant” to “case”. Revised Code, c. 112, § 15..

The court made the following order:

“And now, to wit, this fifth day of March, A. D. 1914, the above motion having been considered by the court, the same is allowed, and the form of the above action is changed from an action of case to an action of covenant.”  