Cummin v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 18 January 1882
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CUMMIN v. WILCOX.

11 N.W. 289

47 Mich. 501

CUMMIN v. WILCOX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 18, 1882

The objection that the evidence did not tend to prove a demand set forth in the bill of particulars cannot be considered by the supreme court if it was not made below.

A plaintiff may properly be allowed to amend his bill of particulars where the evidence does not tend to prove a demand set forth therein.

Error to Shiawassee.

Jerome W. Jurner, for plaintiff in error.

James M. Godell, for defendant in error.

MARSTON, J.

There was evidence given and offered in this case tending to show that the estate represented by the plaintiff had a claim against the defendant which the latter had admitted to be correct. This evidence was practically ruled out and exceptions taken. In support of the ruling it is said in counsel's brief in this court that this evidence did not tend to prove the demand set forth in plaintiff's bill of particulars. This may have been the case but no such objection seems to have been made in the court below. If it had an amendment doubtless would have been permitted.

Judgment reversed with costs and new trial ordered.

(The other justices concurred.)