Hester v. . Mullen

12 S.E. 447, 107 N.C. 724
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 12 S.E. 447 (Hester v. . Mullen) 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
Hester v. . Mullen, 12 S.E. 447, 107 N.C. 724 (N.C. 1890).

Opinion

Davis, J.

after stating the facts: By section 157 of The Code, “an action for slander” must be brought within six months.

In the case before us the summons was issued the 21st of January, 1889.

The first complaint alleged a cause of action for words uttered in April, 1888, more than six .months before the summons was issued, and was barred.

At Spring Term, 1890, leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend his complaint, the defendant objecting, and on the 19th of April, 1890, he filed an amended complaint setting up a cause of action for other words uttered by the defendant on September 14th, 1888, “within six months” of the issuing of the summons, but more than eighteen months before the filing of the amended complaint.

*726 This cannot be done without the consent of parties, for while the power of the Courts to allow amendments in furtherance of justice is a very broad one, it has its limitations, and, after the action is commenced and the complaint is filed, as was said by the present Chief Justice, in Clendenin v. Turner, 96 N. C., 421, “Only such amendments as to parties or the cause of the action may be made as its nature and scope warranted. Amendments in this respect must be such, and only such, as are necessary to promote the completion of the action begv/n.” In the present case the action begun, as set out in the first complaint, was for words spoken in April, 1888; the amended complaint sets out a new and distinct cause of action for other words spoken in September, 1888, and as to the latter new and distinct cause of action, the amended complaint must be treated as the beginning of the action. Ely v. Early, 94 N. C., 1; Clendenin v. Turner, supra; Robbins v. Harris, 96 N. C., 557, and the cases cited in them.

No error.

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

Related

Clevenger v. . Grover
193 S.E. 12 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
North Carolina Cotton Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. Tillery
160 S.E. 767 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Jones v. . Vanstory
157 S.E. 867 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Reynolds v. Lloyd Cotton Mills
99 S.E. 240 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Bennett v. North Carolina Railroad
74 S.E. 883 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Hall v. Southern R. R. Co.
62 S.E. 899 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Woodcock v. Bostic.
38 S.E. 881 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Sams v. Price, Welch & Co.
28 S.E. 486 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Bray v. . Creekmore
13 S.E. 723 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 S.E. 447, 107 N.C. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hester-v-mullen-nc-1890.