Case ID: mich_117/html/0172-01.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

HOYT v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.
    1. Libel — Amended Declaration.
    Amending the declaration in an action for libel, which sets forth the libelous article in full and claims general damages, by setting up special damages and defining by innuendoes the meaning of the alleged libelous publication, does not introduce a new cause of action.
    
      2. Pleading — Amendments—Discretion op Court.
    The matter of permitting amendments to pleadings rests in the discretion of the trial court.
    
      Mandamus by Edward C: Hoyt to compel Joseph W. Donovan, circuit judge of Wayne county, to permit relator to file an amended declaration.
    Submitted May 17, 1898.
    Writ denied May 18, 1898.
    
      
      George C. Eyre and Malcolm, C. Yerkes (Bacon & Palmer, of counsel), for relator.
    
      Elliott G. Stevenson and Leo M. Butzel, for respondent.
   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.