Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Mich. 4

Smith v. Cowles

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1900

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1900-02-20

Assumpsit by Albert Smith, administrator of the estate-of Ellen E. Smith, deceased, against William Cowles, upon a judgment. From a judgment for plaintiff on verdict directed by the court, defendant brings error. Plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit upon a judgment in favor of Albert Smith and against the defendant, William Cowles, rendered in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee on the 22d day of May, 1889, for the sum of $465.26.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1910

1 state decisions

Relies on Kean v. Mitchell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1900-02-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, J.

¶1(after stating the facts). The notice given under the common counts cannot aid the special count. That count sets forth the amount of the judgment, the defendant, and the court in which it was rendered. It fails to give the name of the plaintiff and the date of the judgment, and to state that it is in force. The declaration is clearly defective, and the objection raised against it would have been good upon demurrer. For form of *6declaration upon a judgment, see 1 Shinn, PI. & Prac. 552. The defendant chose to plead the general issue. To sustain his contention, we must hold that the declaration states no cause of action. The cause of action stated is a judgment. The pleader has failed in describing this judgment as fully as good and careful pleading requires. Plaintiff could have amended upon the trial, and should have asked leave to do so. Appellate courts are authorized to amend declarations, where the issue is not altered by the amendment. 3 Comp. Laws 1897, § 10273; also see section 10272, subd. 7, and authorities cited. Under that statute this court will consider this amendment as now made. Kean v. Mitchell, 13 Mich. 207, is a case in point. The rule applicable to this case is there quoted and approved, and is as follows:

“Where there is any defect, imperfection, or omission in any pleading, whether in substance or form, which would hav”e been.a fatal objection upon demurrer, yet if the issue joined be such as necessarily required, on the trial, proof of the facts so defectively or imperfectly stated or omitted, and without which it is not to be presumed that either the judge would direct the jury to give, or the jury would have given, the verdict, such defect, imperfection, or omission is cured by the verdict at the common law.” Stennel v. Hogg, 1 Saund. 228, note 1.

¶2The judgment is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
/123/mich/4 · .json · Public domain