Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works

28 S.E. 192, 121 N.C. 91
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1897·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

The plaintiff sued for a penalty • of $200, before a Justice of the Peace, and the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded the statute of limitations. On appeal in the Superior Court, the plaintiff asked leave to amend his complaint by inserting a second, cause of action, which was refused. He claimed the right,. *92 as of course, under The Code, Sec. 272. The motion, coming after the time for answering had expired and after answer had been filed, was too late, as a matter of course. The privilege of amending pleadings is at the discretion of the court, and its decision is not reviewable. Commissioners of Alamance v. Blair, 76 N. C., 136; Kron v. Smith, 96 N. C., 389; Clark’s Code, pp. 220.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works, 28 S.E. 192, 121 N.C. 91 (N.C. 1897).

28 S.E. 192 (Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. . Davis
28 S.E.2d 556 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Biggs v. . Moffitt
11 S.E.2d 870 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works
31 S.E. 373 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Whitaker v. . Dunn
29 S.E. 54 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)