U.S. Supreme Court BEMIS BROS. BAG CO. v. U.S., 289 U.S. 28 (1933)

[Page 289 U.S. 28, 34]

defective, in its prayer for relief. It asks for a special assessment under sections 327 and 328. It should have asked for this, and, in the alternative, that invested capital be re-examined and increased. But for the purpose of determining the limits of permissible amendment, a change of the legal theory of a suit, 'a departure from law to law,' is no longer accepted as a test of general validity. United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., supra, and cases there cited. Still weaker is a test derived from the prayer for relief, the mere demand for judgment. The rule is now general that at a trial upon the merits the suitor shall have the relief appropriate to the facts that he has pleaded, whether he has prayed for it or not. [Footnote 1] Cf. Equity Rules 19 and 22 (28 USCA 723). A claim for refund is not a pleading, and analogies borrowed from the forms and methods of a lawsuit will be applied to these administrative remedies 'in due subordination to differences of end and aim.' United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., supra. Even so, they will have their place of influence, which may turn out to be controlling, if differences of end and aim are obscure or indecisive.

[Page 289 U.S. 28, 36]

of one section and transfer it to another before revision will be complete. All this is quite irrelevant when once a wrong is brought to light. There can be no stopping after that until justice has been done.

The judgment is reversed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 For a summary of the decisions, see Clark on Code Pleading, p. 184.