Tussey v. . Owen

61 S.E. 180, 147 N.C. 335, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 63
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 15, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 61 S.E. 180 (Tussey v. . Owen) 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
Tussey v. . Owen, 61 S.E. 180, 147 N.C. 335, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 63 (N.C. 1908).

Opinion

Walker, J.,

after stating the case: When this case was here before we declared that there was error and that the Superior Court should have entered a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiffs. The judgment of this Court was duly certified to the court below, with directions to proceed further in the cause in accordance with the opinion by which the non-suit had been ordered. The nonsuit was ordered, not upon the pleadings, but upon the evidence, under the provisions of the statute (Eevisal, sec. 539). It was in law equivalent to a reversal of the judgment below and a direction to dismiss the action. Hollingsworth v. Skelding, 142 N. C., 246; Bowden v. Railroad, 144 N. C., 28. It was therefore the duty of the Superior Court, when it received the certificate of this Court with the accompanying opinion1, to dismiss the action in accordance with the mandate of the judgment delivered here. It had no power to proceed otherwise than as directed in that judgment, and especially did it not have the power to proceed in a manner inconsistent therewith. The cases to this effect are numerous. Calvert v. Peebles, 82 N. C., 334; Murrill v. Murrill, 90 N. C., 120; Brendle v. Herren, 97 N. C., 257; Pearson v. Carr, 97 N. C., 194; Dob-son v. Bimonton, 100 N. C., 56; Stephens v. Koonce, 106 N. C., 222; Herndon v. Insurance Co., 108 N. C., 648; Black v. Black, 111 N. C., 300. In McCall v. Webb, 126 N. C., 760, this Court held that after final judgment in the Supreme Court it is too late to set up a new cause of action by amendment of the complaint, and in White v. Butcher, 97 N. C., 7, this Court refused to permit any change in the pleadings for *338 tbe purpose of introducing new matter into the case after it bad been finally decided upon the merits. “The controversy adjusted in this Court could not be reopened in the court below, as seems to have been attempted, by new pleadings introduced or by permitting anything’ to be done inconsistent or at variance with the rulings here made.” White v. Butcher, 97 N. C., 10.

In Murrill v. Murrill, supra, it is suggested that the refusal of the Superior Court to obey the mandate of this Court is not reviewable by appeal, .as there is nothing to be reviewed, the proper remedy being by mandamus, following Ray v. Ray, 34 N. C., 24. In this case the Superior Court eventually did what should have been done when the judgment and opinion of this Court Were certified to and received by the court below. The intermediate orders and proceedings are nugatory. The plaintiff may, under the decisions of this Court, bring another .action within one year after the judgment of nonsuit. Meekins v. Railroad, 131 N. C., 1; Prevatt v. Harrelson, 132 N. C., 250; Evans v. Alridge, 133 N. C., 378; Nunally v. Railroad, 134 N. C., 755; Hood v. Telegraph Co., 135 N. C., 627. If this were an open question the writer of this opinion would not give his assent to the principle as thus decided, as a dismissal of the case upon the merits, whether called a non-suit or by any other name, is equivalent in law to a judgment upon a demurrer to the evidence, which by the best-considered authorities has the same effect as a bar to another suit, as a judgment rendered upon a demurrer to the pleadings or as any other judgment upon the merits. Willoughby v. Stevens, 132 N. C., 254. But the law has been settled the other way by actual decision upon the very question, and we now hold unanimously that another suit will lie within a year of the nonsuit. It would seem that a decision affirming the judgment is the best disposition for the plaintiff that could be made of the case, as it eliminates the serious question raised *339 by tbe defendant’s counsel whether the judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the demurrer operates as a bar to a second assertion of the same cause of action to which the objection by way of demurrer was first taken. The plaintiff may sue again and plead as she may be advised.

No Error.

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

Related

D & W, INC. v. City of Charlotte
152 S.E.2d 199 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Collins v. Simms
125 S.E.2d 298 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Rowland Ex Rel. Messer v. Beauchamp
116 S.E.2d 720 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Kelly v. Kelly
84 S.E.2d 809 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Brady v. Southern Railway Co.
319 U.S. 777 (Supreme Court, 1943)
Blades v. Southern Railway Co.
12 S.E.2d 553 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Crisco
161 S.E. 310 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Hampton v. . Spinning Company
151 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Moore v. . Miller
102 S.E. 627 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Culbreth v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
86 S.E. 624 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Starling v. Selma Cotton Mills
84 S.E. 388 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Tuttle v. . Warren
69 S.E. 426 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Morrow v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Ry. Co.
66 S.E. 186 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1909)
Smith v. Globe Home Furniture Manufacturing Co.
65 S.E. 1009 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Eureka Lumber Co. v. Harrison
62 S.E. 413 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 S.E. 180, 147 N.C. 335, 1908 N.C. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tussey-v-owen-nc-1908.