Case ID: mass_18/html/0160-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wilde J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Danielson et al. versus Andrews et al.
    
    The ad damnum in the writ was increased in the court below, so as to give a right of appeal.2
    2 The ad damnum in the writ being laid at $ 100 and the judgment being rendered erroneously for a greater sum, this does not give the defendant a right to appeal. Hemmenway v. Hickes, 4 Pick. 497. An appeal lies from the Common Pleas in personal actions, where the ad damnum exceeds, $ 100 although the . demand set out is less than that sum. Chamberlain v. Cochran, 8 Pick. 522.
   Wilde J.,

in delivering the opinion of the Court, said, that this seemed to be within the discretion of the judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and that this Court did not think proper to overrule the amendment. It struck him, that it would dissolve the attachment, where there is a subsequent attachment. 
      
      
         See McLellan v. Crofton, 6 Greenl. 307, 328; Bogart v. McDonald, 2 Johns. Cas. 219.
     
      
       See Putnam v. Hall, 3 Pick. 445.