Strickland v. Jackson

132 S.E.2d 338, 260 N.C. 190, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 663
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 18, 1963·No. 106·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

HiggiNS, J.

The parties to the present controversy have shown a disposition to stand strictly upon their legal rights. Discretionary power vested in the judges of superior court to permit amendments to pleadings (G.S. 1-161; Electric Co. v. Dennis, 255 N.C. 64, 120 S.E. 2d 533; Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680, 83 S.E. 2d 785;) has not been invoked.

The appeal from the Mintz judgment had the effect of suspending further proceedings pending the appeal. The suspension, however, was lifted when this Court’s affirming Certificate was received in the Superior Court of Pitt County on April 3, 1963. As of that date the rights of the parties were fixed by G.S. 1-131, with which the challenged order conformed. The plaintiffs had authority to amend within 30 days. Dudley v. Dudley, 250 N.C. 95, 107 S.E. 2d 918; Teague v. Oil Co., 232 N.C. 469, 61 S.E. 2d 345. Judge Hubbard’s order of April 19,1963, neither added to nor took from the rights of either party.

The plaintiffs’ amendment of May 13, 1963, was not filed within 30 days. Consequently, the order of Judge Latham striking the amendment is

Affirmed.

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

Strickland v. Jackson, 132 S.E.2d 338, 260 N.C. 190, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 663 (N.C. 1963).

132 S.E.2d 338 (Strickland v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hendrix v. Alsop
180 S.E.2d 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Hendrix v. Alsop
178 S.E.2d 637 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
D & W, INC. v. City of Charlotte
152 S.E.2d 199 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)