Nugent v. Adsit

Michigan Supreme Court

Nugent v. Adsit

53 N.W. 620, 93 Mich. 462

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 18, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 53 N.W. 620 (Nugent v. Adsit) 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

Nugent v. Adsit, 53 N.W. 620, 93 Mich. 462 (Mich. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The relator asks for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to vacate an order allowing an amendment to the declaration in a suit instituted by John Bresnahan, as administrator of the estate of Daniel Nugent, against the relator.¹

The declaration, as originally framed, counted on an alleged fraudulent transfer to the relator of certain personal property by Daniel Nugent, which transfer plaintiff claims he is entitled to attack in the right of creditors. A portion of the property described in the declaration and alleged to have been converted is an item of “ 953 [463]*463bushels of wheat, $1,040." After one trial of the case, aud. at a time when the statute of limitations would constitute a bar to a new action, the plaintiff was permitted to amend his declaration by striking out this item, and inserting in place thereof, “31 acres of growing-wheat, $800."

It has been repeatedly held that the court has no power to permit an amendment which introduces a new cause of action after the same has become barred by the statute of limitations. Gorman v. Circuit Judge, 27 Mich. 138; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Circuit Judge, 35 Id. 227. Upon full consideration, we feel constrained to hold that the amendment allowed in this cause did permit the plaintiff to introduce a new cause of action, and that, therefore, the circuit judge exceeded his authority.

The mandamus will issue as prayed.

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

Per Curiam.

The relator asks for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to vacate an order allowing an amendment to the declaration in a suit instituted by John Bresnahan, as administrator of the estate of Daniel Nugent, against the relator.¹

The declaration, as originally framed, counted on an alleged fraudulent transfer to the relator of certain personal property by Daniel Nugent, which transfer plaintiff claims he is entitled to attack in the right of creditors. A portion of the property described in the declaration and alleged to have been converted is an item of “ 953 [463]*463bushels of wheat, $1,040." After one trial of the case, aud. at a time when the statute of limitations would constitute a bar to a new action, the plaintiff was permitted to amend his declaration by striking out this item, and inserting in place thereof, “31 acres of growing-wheat, $800."

It has been repeatedly held that the court has no power to permit an amendment which introduces a new cause of action after the same has become barred by the statute of limitations. Gorman v. Circuit Judge, 27 Mich. 138; Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Circuit Judge, 35 Id. 227. Upon full consideration, we feel constrained to hold that the amendment allowed in this cause did permit the plaintiff to introduce a new cause of action, and that, therefore, the circuit judge exceeded his authority.

The mandamus will issue as prayed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.W. 620, 93 Mich. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nugent-v-adsit-mich-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack