TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People ex rel. Powers v. Judge of Kent Circuit Court

The People on the relation of William T. Powers and others v. The Judge of Kent Circuit Court

People ex rel. Powers v. Judge of Kent Circuit Court, 30 Mich. 387 (1874)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 21, 1874
Citations
30 Mich. 3871874 Mich. LEXIS 203
Headnotes
Mandamus:. Declaration: Amendments: New and distinct cause of action. Whether mandamus will lie to get rid of an amendment to a declaration whereby a new and distinct cause of action is introduced, and the identity of the cause of action for which the suit was originally instituted destroyed:— Queer e ? Declaration: Amendment: Cause of action: Discretion. The showing in this application does not make out a case of such a change, or of any change in the cause of action not within judicial discretion.
Summary
Application for mandamus. This application is to compel the respondent to strike from the files of a cause pending in his court an amended ■declaration. The action was for damages for an injury caused by an obstruction of Grand River by a dam; and the injury alleged in the original declaration was the detention of, and damages to, certain rafts and floats of lumber manufactured by the plaintiffs at their mill above the obstruction complained of; and the amendments allowed were 'designed to cover like injuries in reference to lumber and timber purchased by the plaintiffs at and about their mill, as well as that manufactured by them.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This is an application for mandamus to require the judge to strike from the files of a cause pending in his court an amended declaration. "We are unable to find in the application, as explained to us, any ground for this intervention. Setting aside all question as to the appropriateness of mandamus to get rid of the amendment to *388 the declaration if erroneous as introducing a new and distinct canse of action, or as destroying the identity of the cause of action for which the suit was originally instituted,, the showing does not, as we think, establish prima facie that any such change was made, or any change not within judicial discretion.

The application must therefore be refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Oakland251 N.W. 395 (Mich. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Chemical Bank & Trust Co. v. County of Oakland251 N.W. 395 (Mich. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list