Hoyt v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Hoyt v. Wayne Circuit Judge

75 N.W. 295, 117 Mich. 172

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 18, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 N.W. 295 (Hoyt v. Wayne 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

Hoyt v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 75 N.W. 295, 117 Mich. 172 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator brought an action for libel against the Evening News Association, the publication of which was February 6, 1895. The original declaration was filed in February, 1897. It set forth the libelous article in full, and claimed general damages. Issue was duly joined, and the case was ready for trial, .when, on January 24, 1898, plaintiff asked leave to file an amended declaration setting forth special damages, and by innuendoes defining the meaning of the language in the alleged libelous publication. The court refused to allow the amendment; apparently basing his decision upon the ground that it introduced a new cause of action, barred by the statute of limitations. We think it did not introduce a new cause of action, and that it was within the discretion of the court to allow or disallow. We will not interfere with that discretion, when it is exercised. We assume that the judge will exercise his discretion upon this intimation, and we will not, therefore, direct the issuing of the writ of mandamus.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator brought an action for libel against the Evening News Association, the publication of which was February 6, 1895. The original declaration was filed in February, 1897. It set forth the libelous article in full, and claimed general damages. Issue was duly joined, and the case was ready for trial, .when, on January 24, 1898, plaintiff asked leave to file an amended declaration setting forth special damages, and by innuendoes defining the meaning of the language in the alleged libelous publication. The court refused to allow the amendment; apparently basing his decision upon the ground that it introduced a new cause of action, barred by the statute of limitations. We think it did not introduce a new cause of action, and that it was within the discretion of the court to allow or disallow. We will not interfere with that discretion, when it is exercised. We assume that the judge will exercise his discretion upon this intimation, and we will not, therefore, direct the issuing of the writ of mandamus.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 N.W. 295, 117 Mich. 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack