of the code has been expressly extended to those amendments which require the consent of the court granted upon a motion, and the rule is settled that even in that class the cause of action or defence may be entirely changed.1 In respect to the amendments made at the trial, or on appeal, or by the court upon its own motion, great freedom is used, provided the parties are not misled and surprised, and the issues to be decided are not wholly changed. When evidence has been received without objection making out a cause of action, and especially after a favorable verdict upon such evidence, the utmost liberality is shown by the courts in conforming the averments of the pleading to the case as proved, if the ends of justice will be subserved thereby.2 cation to amendments made before the trial. The only limitation in such cases is that the amendment shall be in furtherance of justice. The same rule seems to be followed in Oregon. In Talbot v. Garretson (1897), 31 Ore. 256, 49 Pac. 978, the court said: "It is within the power of the trial court to allow, before trial, an amended complaint to be filed containing a new cause of action or suit material to the subject-matter of the controversy then before the court. A plaintiff cannot, of course, abandon his original cause of action or suit, and substitute an entirely new and different one, because in such case the new pleading would not be an amendment, but a substitution for the original. But so long as the amendment is germane to the subject-matter of the controversy, we can see no objection to the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, allowing the pleadings to be amended in the furtherance of justice by inserting new and additional allegations material to such controversy, although they may, in effect, constitute a newcause of action or defence." This decision is opposed to Board of Supervisors v. Decker, 34 Wis. 378, which it cites, and in harmony with Brown v. Leigh, 49 N. Y. 78; Hatch v. Central Bank, 78 N. Y. 487; Freeman v. Grant, 132 N. Y. 22, all of which it cites. also Lieuallen v. Mosgrove (1900), 37 Ore. 446, 61 Pac. 1022; McMahan v. Canadian Ry. Co. (1901), 40 Ore. 148, 66 Pac. 708. See, in this connection, Mulhall v. Mulhall (1895), 3 Okla. 304, 41 Pac. 109. See In California it was held, in Frost v. 1 This is particularly the case in North Carolina, where the greatest liberality of amendment prevails. Robinson v. Willoughby, 67 N. C. 84; Bullard v. Johnson, 65 N. C. 436. In the first case the action was brought to recover possession of land under a deed absolute on its face (ejectment). The court, on appeal, held that this deed was in fact a mortgage, and reversed a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, ordering a new trial. Before the second trial, an amendment was permitted changing the canse of action from its original form to one for the foreclosure of this mortgage. See also Culp v. Steere, 47 Kan. 746 (change from action for false representations in a sale to action for breach of express warranty); Hopf v. U. S. Baking Co. (Buf. Super. Ct. 1892), 21 N. Y. S. 589 (plaintiff allowed to amend by changing a course of action sounding in tort to one sounding in contract). 2 Kewaunee Sup. v. Decker, 34 Wis. 378; Hodge v. Sawyer, 34 Wis. 397; Bowman v. Van Kuren, 29 Wis. 209, 215; Smith v. Whitney, 22 Wis. 438; Robinson v. Willoughby, 67 N. C. 84; Bullard v. Johnson, 65 N. C. 436; Oates v. Kendall, 67 N. C. 241; Flanders v. Cottrell, 36 Wis. 564; Little v. Va. & G. H. Water Co., 9 Nev. 317. The reporter's head-note is much broader than the decision actually The plaintiff cannot, however, have his summons and complaint amended during the trial by substituting a different defendant for the single one who was sued, and who had appeared and defended.1 made, and is manifestly erroneous. The following cases illustrate the general rules concerning amendments, and the extent to which amendments are permitted. It seems to be settled by a very decided preponderance of authority that amendments at the trial cannot change the nature of the cause of action or of the defence; but that the court may at its discretion permit amendments on motion before trial which change the cause of action or defence, add a new cause of action or defence, and the like (see additional cases cited under § 558). Johnson v. Filkington, 39 Wis. 62 (cannot amend at trial so as to substitute a new cause of action); Vliet v. Sherwood, 38 id. 159; Spinners v. Brett, 38 id. 648; North West. Union P. Co. v. Shaw, 37 id. 655; Flanders v. Cottrell, 36 id. 564; Tormey v. Pierce, 49 Cal. 306; Blood v. Fairbanks, 48 id. 171; Lottman v. Barnett, 62 Mo. 159; Jeffree v. Walsh, 14 Nev. 143; Almance Cy. Comm'rs v. Blair, 76 N. C. 136; Scott v. Chickasaw Cy., 54 Iowa, 47; Spink v. McCall, 52 id. 432; Newell v. Mahaska Cy. Sav. Bk., 51 id. 178; Peck v. Shick, 50 id. 281; Hammond v. S. C. & P. R. Co., 49 id. 450; O'Connell v. Cotter, 44 id. 48; Hobson v. Ogden's Ex., 16 Kan. 388; Beyer v. Reed, 18 id. 86; Leavenworth, L. & G. R. Co. v. Van Riper, 19 id. 317; Harris v. Turnbridge, 83 N. Y. 92, 97; Reeder v. Sayre, 70 id. 180; Weston v. McMullin, 42 Wis. 567; Tanguay v. Felthouser, 44 id. 30; Tewsbury v. Bronson, 48 id. 581; Graham v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 49 id. 532; Oro Fino, etc. Min. Co. v. Cullen, 1 Idaho, 113; Read v. Beardsley, 6 Neb. 493; Page v. Williams, 54 Cal. 562; Nichols v. Scranton Steel Co., 137 N. Y. 471; Dexter v. Ivins, 133 N. Y. 551; Miner v. Bacon, 131 N. Y. 677; Freeman v. Grant, 132 N. Y. 22; Davis v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 646 (test proposed, whether recovery on the original complaint would be a bar to recovery on the amended complaint); Bockes v. Lansing, 74 N. Y. 437; Lustig v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 65 Hun, 547; Mea v. Pierce, 63 Hun, 400; Bowen v. Sweeney, 63 Hun, 224; 22 Civ. Pro. R. 79; Agersinger v. Scorr, 54 Hun, 613; Hopf v. U. S. Baking Co. (Buf. Super. Ct. 1892), 21 N. Y. Suppl. 589 (plaintiff allowed to amend by changing a cause of action sounding in tort to one sounding in contract); Zoller v. Kellogg, 66 Hun, 194 (change from legal to equitable cause of action not allowed); Sleeman v. Hotchkiss (Supreme, Jan. 1891), 13 N. Y. S. 98 (change from equitable to legal cause of action not allowed); Cumber v. Schoenfeld, 16 Daly, 454 (change from malicious prosecution to false imprisonment not allowed); Chamberlain v. Mensing (S. C.), 51 Fed. Rep. 511; Esch v. Home Ins. Co. of N. Y., 78 Iowa, 334; Plumer v. Clarke, 59 Wis. 646; Continental Ins. Co. v. Phillips (Wis., Nov. 1892), 53 N. W. Rep. 774; Carmichael v. Dolan, 25 Neb. 335; McNider v. Sirrine (Iowa, Oct. 1891), 50 N. W. Rep. 200; Barnes v. Hekla F. Ins. Co., 75 Iowa, 11; Hughes v. McDivitt, 102 Mo. 77; Bradley v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 28 Mo. App. 7 (amendment before answer or reply); Missouri Lumber, etc. Co. v. Zeitinger, 45 Mo. App. 114 (cannot change from statutory action for treble damages for cutting timber, into action of trover for the timber); Gourley v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 35 Mo. App. 87; Caldwell v. Meshew, 53 Ark. 263; Jackson v. Jackson, 94 Cal. 446; McKeighan v. Hopkins, 19 Neb. 33. As to amendment enlarging the amount of recovery, see Work v. Tibbits, 133 N. Y. 574; Schuttler v. King (Mont., May, 1892), 30 Pac. Rep. 25; Cain v. Cody (Cal., April, 1892), 29 Pac. Rep. 778; Guidery v. Green, 95 Cal. 630 (amendment by defendant during trial must be allowed, when no new issue presented). That answering the amended complaint is a waiver of the objection that it states a new cause of action, see Witkowski v. Hern, 82 Cal. 604. 1 [Amendments. The question of the right to file amended pleadings during the trial is one within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its rulings will not be disturbed $ 458. *567. Election between Actions ex delicto and Actions Intimately connected with the questions last ex contractu. unless the record shows an abuse of Campbell (1903), Arizona: Brady v. Pinal County (1903), California: Bean v. Stoneman (1894), 104 Cal. 49, 37 Pac. 777. Indiana: Burnett v. Milnes (1897), 148 Ind 230, 46 N. E. 464. Iowa: Aultman v. Shelton (1894), 90 Ia. 288, 57 N. W. 857; Guyer v. Minn. Thresher Co. (1896), 97 Ia. 132, 66 N. W. 83; Greenlee v. Home Ins. Co. (1897), 103 Ia. 484, 72 N. W. 676; Rosenberger v. Marsh (1899), 108 Ia. 47, 78 N. W. 837; Smith v. City of Sioux City (1903), 119 Ia. 50, 93 N. W. 81. Kansas: Laird v. Farwell (1899), 60 Kan. 512, 57 Pac. 98. Minnesota: Reeves & Co. v. Cress (1900), 80 Minn. 466, 83 N. W. 443; Burke v. Baldwin (1893), 54 Minn. 514, 56 N. W. 173; Minneapolis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co. (1895), 62 Minn. 315, 64 N. W. 902. Missouri: Evans v. Fulton (1896), 134 Mo. 653, 36 S. W. 230. Nebraska: Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Martelle (1902), Neb.91 N. W. 364; Scherar v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1902), 63 Neb. 530, 88 N. W. 687; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. Shaw (1901), 63 Neb. 380, 88 N. W. 508; Gage v. West (1901), 62 Neb. 612, 87 N. W. 344; Dunn v. Bozarth (1899), 59 Neb. 244, 80 N. W. 811; Harrington v. Connor (1897), 51 Neb. 214, 70 N. W. 911; Murray v. Loushman (1896), 47 Neb. 256, 66 N. W. 413; Kleckner v. Turk (1895), 45 Neb. 176, 63 N. W. 469; Central City Bank v. Rice (1895), 44 Neb. 594, 63 N. W. 60; Barr v. City of Omaha (1894), 42 Neb. 341, 60 N. W. 591; Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Murray (1894), 40 Neb. 601, 59 N. W. 102; Manning v. Viers (1894), 38 Neb. 32, 56 N. W. 719; Omaha & R. V. R. R. Co. v. Moschel (1893), 38 Neb. 281, 56 N. W. 825; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Gibson (1893), 37 Neb. 750, 56 N. W. 616; Ledwith v. Neb. - 95 N. W. North Carolina: Barnes v. Crawford (1894), 115 N. C. 76, 20 S. E. 386. North Dakota: Martin v. Luger Furniture Co. (1898), 8 N. D. 220, 77 N. W. 1003; Q. W. Loverin-Browne Co. v. Bank (1898), 7 N. D. 569, 75 N. W. 923. Oklahoma: Tecumseh State Bank v. Maddox (1896), 4 Okla. 583, 46 Pac. 563; Consolidated Steel & Wire Co. v. Burnham (1899), 8 Okla. 514, 58 Pac. 654. Oregon: Clemens v. Hanley (1895), 27 Ore. 326, 41 Pac. 658; Hume v. Kelly (1896), 28 Ore. 398, 43 Pac. 380; Osmun v. Winters (1896), 30 Ore. 177, 46 Pac. 780. South Dakota: Heegaard v. Dakota Loan & Trust Co. (1893), 3 S. D. 569, 54 N. W. 656. Washington: Long v. Eisenbeis (1901), 23 Wash. 556, 63 Pac. 249; Hart Lumber Co. v. Rucker (1898), 20 Wash. 383, 55 Pac. 320; Bishop v. Averill (1898), 19 Wash. 490, 53 Pac. 726; Seward v. Derrickson (1895), 12 Wash. 225, 40 Pac. 939; Hulbert v. Brackett (1894), 8 Wash. 438, 36 Pac. 264; State ex rel. v. Superior Court (1894), 9 Wash. 366, 37 Pac. 454. Wisconsin: Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz (1900), 106 Wis. 499, 82 N. W. 534; Matthieson v. Schomberg (1896), 94 Wis. 1, 68 N. W. 416; Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Langson (1895), 89 Wis. 200, 61 N. W. 773. The question whether, under the particular facts, the ruling of the court showed an abuse of discretion, was considered in the following cases: California: Schaake v. Eagle Automatic Can Co. (1902), 135 Cal. 472, 63 Pac. 1025. Idaho: Jones v. Stoddart (1902), Idaho, 67 Pac. 650. Iowa: Clough v. Bennett (1896), 99 Ia. 69, 68 N. W. 578; Ankrum v. City of Marshalltown (1898), 105 Ia. 493, 75 N. W. 360; Burkhardt v. Burkhardt (1899), 107 Ia. 369, 77 N. W. 1069. Kentucky: Brady v. Peck (1896), 99 Ky. 42, 34 S. W. 906; Felton v. Dunn (1901), Ky., 60 S. W. 298; Metropolitan discussed, as to the proper forms of actions and the correspondence between the allegations and the proofs, is the subject indi Life Ins. Co. v. Smith (1900), Ky., 59 S. W. 24. Minnesota: Smith v. Prior (1894), 58 Minn. 247, 59 N. W. 1016; Minneapolis Stockyards Co. v. Cunningham (1894), 59 Minn. 325, 61 N. W. 329. Montana: York v. Steward (1898), 21 Mont. 515, 55 Pac. 29; Haupt v. Independent Tel. Co. (1900), 25 Mont. 122, 63 Pac. 1033. Nebraska Donovan v. Hibbler (1902), Neb., 92 N. W. 637; Hubenka v. Vach (1902), 64 Neb. 170, 89 N. W. 789; Dufrene v. Anderson (1902), Neb., 90 N. W. 221; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Young (1903), Neb., 93 N. W. 922; Missouri, etc. Trust Co. v. Clark (1900), 60 Neb. 406, 83 N. W. 202; Schlageck v. Widhalm (1900), 59 Neb. 541, 81 N. W. 448; Weich v. Milliken (1898), 57 Neb. 86, 77 N. W. 363; Horbach v. Marsh (1893), 37 Neb. 22, 55 N. W. 286; Western Assurance Co. v. Dry Goods Co. (1898), 54 Neb. 241, 74 N. W. 592; Perkins County v. Miller (1898), 55 Neb. 141, 75 N. W. 577. North Dakota: Anderson v. Bank, (1895), 5 N. D. 80, 64 N. W. 114. Oregon: Wade v. City Railway Co. (1900), 36 Ore. 311, 59 Pac. 875; Nosler v. Coos Bay R. R. Co. (1901), 39 Ore. 331, 64 Pac. 644; Tillamook Dairy Ass'n v. Schermerhorn (1897), 31 Ore. 308, 51 Pac. 438. South Dakota: Brown v. Edmunds (1896), 9 S. D. 273, 68 N. W. 734. Utah: Ruffatti v. Lexington Mining Co. (1894), 10 Utah, 386, 37 Pac. 591. Washington: Norris Safe & Lock Co. v. Clark (1902), 28 Wash. 268, 68 Pac. 718; Newman v. Buzard (1901), 24 Wash. 225, 64 Pac. 139; State v. Lorenz (1900), 22 Wash. 289, 60 Pac. 644; Price Baking Powder Co. v. Rinear (1897), 17 Wash. 95, 49 Pac. 223; West Seattle Land Co. v. Herren (1897), 16 Wash. 665, 48 Pac. 341; Van Lehn v. Morse (1897), 16 Wash. 672, 48 Pac. 404; McDonough v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (1896), 15 Wash. 244, 46 Pac. 334; Price v. Scott (1896), 13 Wash. 574, 43 Pac. 634; Maney v. Hart (1895), 11 Wash 67, 39 l'ac. 268; Barnes v. Pack wood (1894), 10 Wash. 50, 38 Pac. 857; Morgan v. Morgan (1894), 10 Wash. 99, 38 Pac. 1054; Gould v. Gleason (1895), 10 Wash. 476, 39 Pac. 123. Wisconsin: Jacobson v. Tallard (1903), 116 Wis. 662, 93 N. W. 841; Whereatt v. Worth (1900), 108 Wis. 291, 84 N. W. 441; Sullivan v. Collins (1900), 107 Wis. 291, 83 N. W. 310; Carroll v. Fethers (1899), 102 Wis. 436, 78 N. W. 604; St. Clara Female Academy v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. (1899), 101 Wis. 464, 77 N. W. 893; Rock v. Collins (1898), 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426; Schaller v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (1897), 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042; Segelke & Kohlhaus Mfg. Co. v. Hulberg (1896), 94 Wis. 106, 68 N. W. 653; O'Connor v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. (1896), 92 Wis. 612, 66 N. W. 795; Geer v. Holcomb (1896), 92 Wis. 661, 66 N. W. 793; Thompson v. Caledonian Fire Ins. Co. (1896), 92 Wis. 664, 66 N. W. 801; Kennan v. Smith (1902), 115 Wis. 463, 91 N. W. 986. In the following cases it is held that a new and distinct cause of action or defence cannot be introduced by amendment: — Arkansas: Freeman v. Lazarus (1895), 61 Ark. 247, 32 S. W. 680; Sarber v. McConnell (1897), 64 Ark. 450, 43 S. W. 395. California: Frost v. Witter (1901), 132 Cal. 421, 64 Pac. 705 (an important case). Colorado: Anderson v. Groesbeck (1899), 26 Colo. 3, 55 Pac. 1086. Connecticut: Pitkin v. New York, etc. R. R. Co. (1894), 64 Conn. 482, 30 Atl. 772. Idaho: Hallett v. Larcom (1897), Idaho, 51 Pac. 108. Iowa: Boos v. Dulin (1897), 103 Ia. 331, 72 N. W. 533; Denzler v. Rieckhoff (1896), 97 Ia. 75, 66 N. W. 147; Williams v. Williams (1902), 115 Ia. 520, 88 N. W. 1057. Kansas: Ellis v. Flaherty (1902), 65 Kan. 621, 70 Pac. 586; State v. Krause (1897), 58 Kan. 651, 50 Pac. 882. Kentucky: Greer v. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. (1893), 94 Ky. 169, 21 S. W. 649; Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Beauchamp (1900), 108 Ky. 47, 55 S. W. 716; cated by this heading: that is, the power held by the plaintiff, under certain circumstances, of choosing whether he will treat Duckwall v. Brooke (1901), Ky., 65 S. W. 357 (allowing the addition of another cause of action, when the two might have been originally joined). Minnesota: O'Gorman v. Sabin (1895), 62 Minn. 46, 64 N. W. 84. Missouri: Heman v. Glann (1895), 129 Mo. 325, 31 S. W. 589; Chance v. Jennings (1901), 159 Mo. 544, 61 S. W. 177. Nebraska: Western Cornice, etc. Works v. Meyer (1898), 55 Neb. 440, 76 N. W. 23; Undeland v. Stanfield (1897), 53 Neb. 120, 73 N. W. 459; Stratton v. Wood (1895), 45 Neb. 629, 63 N. W. 917; Scroggin v. Johnston (1895), 45 Neb. 714, 64 N. W. 236; Scott v. Spencer (1895), 44 Neb. 93, 62 N. W. 312; Dietz v. City Nat. Bank (1894), 42 Neb. 584, 60 N. W. 896. North Carolina: King v. Dudley (1893), 113 N. C. 167, 18 S. E. 110; Mizzell v. Ruffin (1896), 118 N. C. 69, 23 S. E. 927; Parker v. Harden (1898), 122 N. C. 111, 28 S. E. 962; Goodwin v. Fertilizer Works (1898), 123 N. C. 162, 31 S. E. 373; Board of County Commissioners v. Candler (1898), 123 N. C. 682, 31 S. E. 858; Nims Mfg. Co. v. Blythe (1900), 127 N. C. 325, 37 S. E. 455; Martin v. Bank (1902), 131 N. C. 121, 42 S. E. 558. North Dakota: Mares v. Wormington (1899), 8 N. D. 329, 79 N. W. 441. Colorado: Messenger v. Northcutt (1899), 26 Colo. 527, 58 Pac. 1090. Connecticut: Mechanics' Bank v. Woodward (1902), 74 Conn. 689, 51 Atl. 1084. Georgia: Dinkler v. Baer (1893), 92 Ga. 432, 17 S. E. 953; Colley v. Gate City Co. (1893), 92 Ga. 664, 18 S. E. 817; McCandless v. Inland Acid Co. (1902), 115 Ga. 968, 42 S. E. 449; Craven v. Walker (1897), 101 Ga. 845, 29 S. E. 152; Causey v. Causey (1898), 106 Ga. 188, 32 S. E 138. Iowa: Sachra v. Town of Manilla (1903), 120 Ia. 562, 95 N. W. 198; Thompson v. Brown (1898), 106 la. 367, 76 N. W. 819. Kansas: St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Ludlum (1901), 63 Kan. 719, 66 Pac. 1045. Kentucky: Adams Oil Co. v. Christmas (1897), 101 Ky. 564, 41 S. W. 545; Ford Lumber Co. v. Clark (1902), Ky., 68 S. W. 443; Scottish Union Ins. Co. v. Strain (1902), Ky., 70 S. W. 274 Missouri: Courtney v. Blackwell (1899), 150 Mo. 245, 51 S. W. 668. Montana Murray v. Tingley (1897), 20 Mont. 260, 50 Pac. 723. Nebraska: Massillon Engine & Thresher Co. v. Prouty (1902), — Neb. -, 91 N. W. 384; Ball v. Beaumont (1902), 63 Neb. 215, 92 N. W. 170. North Carolina: Craven v. Russell South Carolina: Pickett v. Fidelity Co. (1896), 118 N. C. 564, 24 S. E. 361. (1901), 60 S. C. 477, 38 S. E. 160. Wisconsin: Gates v. Paul (1903), 117 Wis. 170, 94 N. W. 55 (a valuable case); Klipstein v. Raschein (1903), 117 Wis. 248, 94 N. W. 63. Wyoming Sowin v. Pease (1895), 6 Wyo. 91, 42 Pac. 750. That an amended pleading changes the cause of action is ground for motion to strike but not for demurrer: Beattie Mfg. Co. v. Gerardi (1901), 166 Mo. 142, 65 S. W. 1035; Williams v. Williams (1902), 115 Ia. 520, 88 N. W. 1057. In the following cases the question is considered whether, under the particular facts, the amendment offered amounted to a change in the cause of action or ground of defence. For cases holding that it did not change the cause of action or defence, see:— Oklahoma: Myers v. First Presbyterian Church (1901), 11 Okla. 544, 69 Pac. 874. South Carolina: Booth v. Langley Co. (1897), 51 S. C. 412, 29 S. E. 204; Whitmire v. Boyd (1898), 53 S. C. 315, 31 S. E. 306. Utah Connor v. Raddon (1898), 16 Utah, 418, 52 Pac. 764. For cases holding that the amendment did introduce a new cause of action or ground of defence, see: — Arizona: Motes v. Gila Valley Ry. Co. (1902), Ariz., 68 Pac. 532. Arkansas: Robinson v. United Trust (1903), Ark., 72 S. W. 992. California: Lambert v. McKenzie (1901), 135 Cal. 100, 67 Pac. 6; Storer v. Austin (1902), 136 Cal. 588, 69 Pac. 277. Colorado: Anthony v. Slayden (1900), |