DocketNumber: File No. 50260
Judges: FITZGERALD, J.
Filed Date: 5/27/1949
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Defendant moves to erase the case from the docket for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint contains no ad damnum clause. It appears that the complaint in its original form does not contain such clause and that at an earlier date defendant filed a plea in abatement on the same ground as the now interposed motion. On March 23, 1949, *Page 217 the court (Swain, J.) overruled the plea as not being the proper method of approach and observed that "It would seem wise that the ad damnum be amended and that the court be asked to render a judgment for the amount of the debt found due the plaintiff on the judgment of the New York court." Thereafter plaintiff filed such an amendment asking for damages in the amount of $1779 and defendant moves to erase the case as stated.
At common law an action based on a writ containing no ad damnum clause was considered fatally defective and required being erased from the docket for want of jurisdiction. SeeDeveau v. Skidmore,
Since the plaintiff has acted upon the observation of Judge Swain, in the nature of a suggestion, by amending her complaint so as to contain a specific ad damnum clause within the jurisdictional limits of the court, the interposed motion must fail.
Motion denied.