Revis v. . Ramsey

164 S.E. 358, 202 N.C. 815, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 234
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 15, 1932
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 358 (Revis v. . Ramsey) 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
Revis v. . Ramsey, 164 S.E. 358, 202 N.C. 815, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 234 (N.C. 1932).

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

Tbe plaintiff contends that as tbe application of tbe defendant, Z. Ponder, to amend bis answer so as to plead tbe statute of limitations was denied by Stack, J., at tbe October Term, 1931, Sink, J., was without authority at tbe February Term, 1932, to'bear a renewal of tbe same motion and to allow it, upon tbe theory that tbe matter was then res judicata and no appeal lies from one Superior Court judge to another. Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N. C., 474, 157 S. E., 434; Phillips v. Ray, 190 N. C., 152, 129 S. E., 177; Dockery v. Fairbanks, 172 N. C., 529, 90 S. E., 501; May v. Lumber Co., 119 N. C., 96, 25 S. E., 721; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N. C., 479, 27 S. E., 130; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1; S. v. Evans, 74 N. C., 324.

Tbe motion made at tbe February Term is different from tbe one lodged at tbe October Term. Compare Jones v. Thorne, 80 N. C., 72. Tbe first was perhaps denied because it was thought tbe statute of limitations bad already been pleaded. But however this may be, no barm *817 bas come to tbe plaintiff from tbe ruling on tbe second motion, and bis appeal is premature.. Trust Co. v. Whitehurst, 201 N. C., 504.

Tbe principle of res judicata does not extend to ordinary motions incidental to tbe progress of a cause, but only to those involving substantial rig-hts. Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C., 490, 8 S. E., 338; Mabry v. Hernry, 83 N. C., 298.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Calloway v. Ford Motor Company
189 S.E.2d 484 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
Overton v. Overton
132 S.E.2d 349 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Wall v. England
89 S.E.2d 785 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Neighbors v. Neighbors
73 S.E.2d 153 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Cole v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co.
20 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
North Carolina Corp. Commission v. United Commercial Bank
16 S.E.2d 473 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
East Coast Fertilizer Co. v. Hardee
188 S.E. 623 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Swinson v. Lance Packing Co.
182 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Temple v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
171 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
State v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey
170 S.E. 134 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 S.E. 358, 202 N.C. 815, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/revis-v-ramsey-nc-1932.