Grace v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Grace v. Johnson

204 S.E.2d 723, 21 N.C. App. 432, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1826

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 1, 1974

DocketNo. 7415DC28

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 S.E.2d 723 (Grace v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grace v. Johnson, 204 S.E.2d 723, 21 N.C. App. 432, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1826 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Rule 4(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to allow amendment of the summons at any time in its discretion unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued. A comment by the General Statutes Commission states that the rule “in terms, does not provide for any greater liberality of amendment than did former G.S. 1-163.” We agree. The question, therefore, is whether an amendment to the summons to correct the name of the court in which the action was commenced would have been allowable under former G.S. 1-163. This question was answered in Brantley v. Sawyer, 5 N.C. App. 557, 169 S.E. 2d 55. In that case the trial court allowed plaintiff to amend the name of the court in which the action was pending. On appeal, this court held that the amendment should not have been allowed because of the fatal variance between the place where defendant was commanded to appear and the place where the suit was pending. In the case before us now, the action was pending in Chatham County. The original and copy of the summons directed defendant to appear and answer in Durham County. Defendant’s motion under Rule 12(b) (4) should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Rule 4(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to allow amendment of the summons at any time in its discretion unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to substantial rights of the party against whom the process issued. A comment by the General Statutes Commission states that the rule “in terms, does not provide for any greater liberality of amendment than did former G.S. 1-163.” We agree. The question, therefore, is whether an amendment to the summons to correct the name of the court in which the action was commenced would have been allowable under former G.S. 1-163. This question was answered in Brantley v. Sawyer, 5 N.C. App. 557, 169 S.E. 2d 55. In that case the trial court allowed plaintiff to amend the name of the court in which the action was pending. On appeal, this court held that the amendment should not have been allowed because of the fatal variance between the place where defendant was commanded to appear and the place where the suit was pending. In the case before us now, the action was pending in Chatham County. The original and copy of the summons directed defendant to appear and answer in Durham County. Defendant’s motion under Rule 12(b) (4) should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.E.2d 723, 21 N.C. App. 432, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grace-v-johnson-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack