
    Carpenter v. Sheldon.
    Practice—Yarianc®.—Where-it is averred in the complaint that the note sued on was indorsed to the plaintiff by Caleb Hendee, and the note offered in evidence on the trial is indorsed by C. Hendee, the variance will not be material and the indorsement on the note will be admissible in evidence.
    Practice—Amount oe Judgment.—Where a complaint prays judgment for the exact amount due at the first term after suit, but judg» ment is not then rendered, and is at a subsequent term for a sum larger than that ashed for by the amount of the subsequently accrued interest only, such judgment will not be erroneous, but the complaint- will be deemed to have been amended so as to demand judgment for the proper sum.
    
      APPEAL from the Kosciusko Common Pleas.
    
      John L. Ketchum, for the appellant.
    
      Newcomb Tarkington, for tbe appellee.
   Per Curiam.

Suit on a note by tbe assignees against tbe maker for 150 dollars. A copy of tbe note and indorsement accompanied tbe complaint. Tbe sum demanded in tbe conclusion of tbe' complaint was 154 dollars and 25 cents; tbe sum recovered .was 162 dollars, tbe amount of tbe note and interest, and was enough to cover tbe amount due if judgment bad been recovered«at tbe first term; several terms of Court having intervened between tbe institution of tbe suit and tbe recovery of the judgment. In tbe complaint it is averred that Caleb Hendee, tbe payee of tbe note, assigned it to tbe plaintiff, but tbe indorsement filed with the note showed that it was signed by C. Hendee.

Tbe introduction of tbe note, &c., as evidence, was objected to on the ground of this variance. Tbe objection was not well taken. Tbe averment that Caleb Hendee indorsed it is not contradicted by tbe indorsement shown of C. Hendee, nor is there any variance, for it is equivalent to averring that Caleb, by tbe name of C. Hendee, indorsed.

As to tbe amount of damages recovered, it is obvious that tbe complaint in respect to tbe amount demanded might have been amended in tbe Court below; sec. 580, 2 G. & H. 278; to correspond with tbe proof, but it was not done, and we are of opinion that we should here consider the amendment as made, in view of the facts of this case, namely, that it was a suit on a note; that tbe complaint originally claimed damages sufficient, but that by the accumulation of interest alone tbe amount recovered exceeded tbe amount so claimed.

The judgment is affirmed, with 3 per cent, damages and costs.  