
    *Palmer & Eubank v. Mill.
    Saturday, April 29th, 1809.
    Amendments--When Writ May Be Referred to. — It the damages be laid high enough in the writ, though the Jury find more than are laid in the declaration, the writ may be referred to for the purpose of amendment, and the judgment will be sustained.
    An appeal from a judgment of the District Court, held at King and Queen CourtHouse.
    The appellee brought an action on the case, against the appellants, (who were joint owners of a schooner,) as common carriers, for a quantity of wheat damaged on board their vessel, on the voyage from Virginia to Baltimore, in Maryland. The damages were laid in the writ, at 2,500 dollars, but in the declaration, at 250 dollars only. Verdict for 3591. 10s. damages, and 281. 10s. 8d. interest, and judgment accordingly.
    Wickham, for the appellee._
    
      
      Damages — Verdict in Excess of Ad Damnum — Reference to Writ.— On this question, the principal" case is cited in foot-note to Hook v. Turnbull, 6 Call 85.
      In Clarke v. Ohio River R. Co., 39 W. Va. 739. 20 S. E. Rep. 698, it is said; “The tourth assignment of error is that the court erred in allowing plaintiff to amend his declaration by inserting again therein a claim of $1,000 damages, marked 'No. 1.’ This claim had been by the court stricken from the declaration, and it was afterwards reinserted. It was only an amendment. It was properly in the declaration, and the court erroneously — it is said inadvertently— struck it out. But it is said its addition made the damages claimed sum up beyond the amount claimed in the ad damnum clause at the close of the declaration. I think this made no difference. The amount recovered was less than the amount claimed by writ or declaration. The specification of items of damages may exceed the sum named in the conclusion of the declaration. Tassey v. Church, 39 Am. Dec. 65; Merrill v. Curtis, 57 Me. 152; Palmer v. Mill, 3 Hen. & M. 502; 1 Bart Law Pr. 328: 4 Minor, Inst. 1158." See monographic 'note- on “Amendments” appended to Snead v. Coleman, 7 Gratt. 300.
    
   On the authority of the case of Hook v. Turnbull, it was held that the writ might be referred to for the purpose of amendment; and the damages laid therein being sufficiently large, judgment was affirmed by the whole Court. 
      
       May. 1808, MS. and see 2 Hen. & Munf. 457, where the same case is referred to by Jrruoii Tuokek, in giving his opinion in the case of Craghill and others v. Page, Gov. &c.
     