Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 Mich. 395

Wingert v. Carpenter

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1894

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1894-07-05

Mandamus. Relator applied for mandamus to compel respondent to permit him to file an amended declaration. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Relies on The Harrisburg · People ex rel. Gorman v. Judge of the Newaygo Circuit Court

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-07-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1955

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

401894190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, J.

¶1The relator, as administrator of the estate of Alexander Wingert, deceased, brought suit in the circuit court for the county of Wayne to recover damages for the death of said Alexander, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, the Star Line of Steamers, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of Michigan.

¶2The deceased was drowned July 11, 1892, in Canadian waters. Suit was commenced on September 23, 1892, by filing declaration and entering rule to plead. Plaintiff based his right of recovery on How. Stat. §§ 8313, 8314. The case came to trial, and the court directed a verdict for the defendant, for the reason that the cause of action arose and the death occurred within the province of Ontario, wholly without the jurisdiction of this State, and that the Michigan statute relied upon had no application. Subsequently the verdict was set aside, in order to give the relator the opportunity to move to amend his declaration. He submitted an amended declaration with his motion to *397amend. The motion was denied, and the purpose of this petition is to compel respondent to permit the filing of this amended declaration. The Canadian statute counted upon is set forth in the amended declaration, and provides that the action must be commenced within 12 months after the death of the deceased person. When .the amendment was proposed, the 12 months had expired.

¶3The cause of action arose in Canada, and under Canadian laws. If the plaintiff has any right of action, it is by virtue of those laws. The question must therefore be determined by the same rule that would hold were this the commencement of a suit. The statute of limitations cannot be evaded under the guise of an amendment. Gorman v. Circuit Judge, 27 Mich. 138. The Canadian statute establishes the liability and provides the remedy. It must control. The right of action, having become barred in Canada, is barred here. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 214.

¶4The writ must be denied.

The other Justices concurred.
/101/mich/395 · .json · Public domain