Case Name: DAINES v. TARABUSI; SAME v. SAME
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1930-03-07
Citations: 250 Mich. 217
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 84, 85, Calendar Nos. 34,770, 34,771
Parties: DAINES v. TARABUSI. SAME v. SAME.
Judges: Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 250
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
DAINES v. TARABUSI. SAME v. SAME.
1. Judgment — Mat Not Exceed Amount Named in Ad Damnum Clause.
In action on bond, judgment may not exceed amount named in ad damnum clause of declaration.
2. Pleading — Amendment—Ad Damnum Clause May be Amended.
Under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12178, trial court, in action on bond, had right to permit amendment of ad damnum clause of declaration to conform to proofs.
Error to Oakland; Doty (Frank L.), J.
Submitted January 21, 1930.
(Docket Nos. 84, 85, Calendar Nos. 34,770, 34,771.)
Decided March 7, 1930.
Separate actions of assumpsit by Mark A. Daines and another and Harold P. Daines and another against Louis Tarabusi and American Employers’ Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, on a bond. From judgments for plaintiffs, defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Pelton & McGee, for plaintiffs.
Arthur E. Moore, for defendants.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
The declaration in each of these cases is on a bond. At the conclusion of proof, plaintiffs had shown damage in excess of the amount named in the ad damnum clause. They asked and were given leave to amend.
Plaintiffs had judgment in each case here reviewed on error.
The sole contention is that the judgment may not exceed the amount named in the ad damnum clause. True, hut the court permitted amendment of the clause as he had right to do. 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12478; Zeilman v. Fry, 213 Mich. 504; Gates v. Beebe, 170 Mich. 107.
Affirmed.
Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.