Drew v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Drew v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 510, 1 Doug. 434

DecidedJuly 1, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 510 (Drew v. Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drew v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 510, 1 Doug. 434 (Mich. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

To compel respondent to strike from the files an amended declaration which introduced a new cause of action.

Granted, 1844.

Held, (1) that the motion to strike from the files and the decision of the Circuit Court thereon, would constitute no part of a common law record of the case, and that mandamus is the proper remedy in such a case to obtain a reversal of the decision; (2) that after an amended declaration has been filed by leave of court and demurred to, plaintiffs could not file a [512]*512second amended declaration as of course, but must obtain leave of court; (3) that tbe original and also tbe first amended declaration were in debt, to recover the penalty for usury under the statute, 'while the last added three counts for money had and received, introducing a new cause of action, and (4) that an action founded upon a statute cannot be joined with an action at common law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

To compel respondent to strike from the files an amended declaration which introduced a new cause of action.

Granted, 1844.

Held, (1) that the motion to strike from the files and the decision of the Circuit Court thereon, would constitute no part of a common law record of the case, and that mandamus is the proper remedy in such a case to obtain a reversal of the decision; (2) that after an amended declaration has been filed by leave of court and demurred to, plaintiffs could not file a [512]*512second amended declaration as of course, but must obtain leave of court; (3) that tbe original and also tbe first amended declaration were in debt, to recover the penalty for usury under the statute, 'while the last added three counts for money had and received, introducing a new cause of action, and (4) that an action founded upon a statute cannot be joined with an action at common law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 510, 1 Doug. 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drew-v-circuit-judge-mich-1844.