Case ID: serg-rawl_6/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Spackman, administrator of Morris against Byers.
    
      March.
    
    If the ages assessed by the jury ^mv^x-6 eeed the damages laid in. the declarawill not, on the removal of the record by writ oferof surplus damages to be entered 5 blit will, without the Court below edjfthey"1" *>nkfWoper, tamed to this of the excess they will ni-
    
    In Error. ¶
    ON the trial of this cause in the Court of Common Pleas ot Chester county, on the 12th and 13th November, 1811, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, (the defendant in error! exceeding in amount the damages laid in the dey °. ° claration. Judgment being entered for the sum found by the verdict, the record was jemoved by writ of error to Court, where, when the case was called up for argument, on _ _ _ , /-n. t » r i . r > . the 22d December, 1820, Tzlghman9 for the defendant m error, asked leave to enter a remittitur for the excess of damages found by the iurv beyond those laid in the . J, ó * J ration.
    This application was resisted by Hemphill, for the plai ntiff in error,
    who contended, that though.the inferior Court might have suffered a remittitur to be entered before judgment, or even before the sueing out of the writ"of error, it could not be done by this Court, who having nothing to amend by, must take the judgment as they find it, and if it appear to be erroneous on the record, must reverse it. Dorsey y. 1 Sérg. Raw le. 44. Gratz v. Phillips, 5 Binn. 567. Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 95. 2 Salk. 566. 3 Bl. 407. 2 Sellón, Pr. 458. 2 Bl. B.ep. 1300. ¡
    
      Tilghman,
    answered that in modern times, Courts had exercised great liberality in granting amendments where they tended to the promotion of iustice; that they had , r J 7 1 been allowed after removal of the record by writ of error; Berryhill v. Wells, 5 Binn. 60. Short v. Coffin, 5 Burr. 2730. Burrows v. Heysham, 1 Dall. 133 ; that the rule which required the damages assessed, not to exceed those demanded by the declaration was purely technical, and had been so declared by Judge Br.ackenr.idge, who wished to see it changed ; Gratz v. Phillips, 5 Binn. 572 ; that in the case of Furry v. Stone, 1 Yeates, 186, this Court permitted a remittitur of surplus damages to be entered after a writ of error had been sued out, but before the removal of the record ; that the Court now had the record before them, and it would promote the ends of justice to suffer the proposed amendment to be made.
   The Court permitted the record to be carried back to the Court of Common Pleas, in order that they might amend it, if they thought proper, by a release of the surplus damages j and at this term, the record being returned with an amendment that removed the objection as to the amount of damages, the judgment was affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.