Case ID: mich_30/html/0387-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People on the relation of William T. Powers and others v. The Judge of Kent Circuit Court.
    
      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.
    
      Heard October 20.
    
    
      Decided October 21.
    
    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.
    
      John O. Fitzgerald, for relators.
    
      L. D. Norris, for respondent.
   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 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.