Legal Opinion

Daines v. Tarabusi

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1930No. Docket Nos. 84, 85, Calendar Nos. 34,770, 34,771PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The declaration in each of these cases is on a bond. At the conclusion of proof, plaintiffs had shown damage in excess of the amount named in the ad damnum clause. They asked and were given leave to amend.

Plaintiffs had judgment in each case here reviewed on error.

The sole contention is that the judgment may not exceed the amount named in the ad damnum clause. True, but the court permitted amendment of the clause as he had right to do. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12478; Zeilman v. Fry, 213 Mich. 504; Gates v. Beebe, 170 Mich. 107.

Affirmed.

WIEST, C.J., and BUTZEL, McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Zeilman v. FryMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Gates v. BeebeMichigan Supreme Court · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Muskegon Hardware & Supply Co. v. GreenMichigan Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Shambleau v. HoytMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Nicholson v. DavisMichigan Supreme Court · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API