Henry v. . Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Henry v. . Cannon

86 N.C. 24

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 86 N.C. 24 (Henry v. . Cannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry v. . Cannon, 86 N.C. 24 (N.C. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Ashe, J.

We had supposed that questions like that presented in this record for our consideration had been too well settled by repeated adjudications to be the subject of appeal at this day. But as the case has been brought before us, we proceed to cite some of the cases in which the question has been decided, lest by the omission to do so we might be thought .wanting in respect to the member of the profession *25 who took the appeal. In Johnson v. Rowland, 80 N. C., 1, which was an application to the court by the defendant to be allowed to file the plea of set-off or counterclaim at the trial, the court held that the reception of the plea was a matter addressed to the discretion of the court, and not matter of absolute right in the defendant. Defendant having-failed to make his defence in the justice’s court, he could do so only at the discretion of the judge in the appellate court, and the rejection or reception of the plea was altogether a matter of discretion which this court could not review.

And again in Austin v. Clark, 70 N. C., 458, Bynum, J., speaking for the court, said: “The C. C. P. invests the court with ample powers in all questions of practice and procedure both as to amendments and continuances, to be exercised at the discretion of the judge presiding, who is presumed best to know what orders and what indulgence will promote the ends of justice in each particular case. With the exercise of this discretion we cannot interfere, and it is not the subject of the appeal.” C. C. P., §133; Hinton v. Deans, 75 N. C., 18; State v. Lamon, 3 Hawks, 175; Cannon v. Beeman, 3 Dev., 463; Bright v. Sugg, 4 Dev., 492; Phillipse v. Higdon, Busb., 380; Ingram v. McMorris, 2 Jones, 450; Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496; Gilchrist v. Kitchen, ante, 20.

We have cited all of these authorities upon the discretionary power of the courts in allowing or refusing amendments, hoping it may now be considered a “ settled question.”

There is no error. The case is not review-able in this court, and the appeal must be dismissed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Ashe, J.

We had supposed that questions like that presented in this record for our consideration had been too well settled by repeated adjudications to be the subject of appeal at this day. But as the case has been brought before us, we proceed to cite some of the cases in which the question has been decided, lest by the omission to do so we might be thought .wanting in respect to the member of the profession *25 who took the appeal. In Johnson v. Rowland, 80 N. C., 1, which was an application to the court by the defendant to be allowed to file the plea of set-off or counterclaim at the trial, the court held that the reception of the plea was a matter addressed to the discretion of the court, and not matter of absolute right in the defendant. Defendant having-failed to make his defence in the justice’s court, he could do so only at the discretion of the judge in the appellate court, and the rejection or reception of the plea was altogether a matter of discretion which this court could not review.

And again in Austin v. Clark, 70 N. C., 458, Bynum, J., speaking for the court, said: “The C. C. P. invests the court with ample powers in all questions of practice and procedure both as to amendments and continuances, to be exercised at the discretion of the judge presiding, who is presumed best to know what orders and what indulgence will promote the ends of justice in each particular case. With the exercise of this discretion we cannot interfere, and it is not the subject of the appeal.” C. C. P., §133; Hinton v. Deans, 75 N. C., 18; State v. Lamon, 3 Hawks, 175; Cannon v. Beeman, 3 Dev., 463; Bright v. Sugg, 4 Dev., 492; Phillipse v. Higdon, Busb., 380; Ingram v. McMorris, 2 Jones, 450; Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496; Gilchrist v. Kitchen, ante, 20.

We have cited all of these authorities upon the discretionary power of the courts in allowing or refusing amendments, hoping it may now be considered a “ settled question.”

There is no error. The case is not review-able in this court, and the appeal must be dismissed.

No error. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 N.C. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-cannon-nc-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack