Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Bowman
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.
The exception to the order permitting defendants to amend their answer is without merit. Whether the amendment should be allowed rested within the sound discretion of the court below. G.S. 1-163; Bank v. Sturgill, 223 N.C. 825, 28 S.E. 2d 511; Hughes v. Oliver, 228 N.C. 680, 47 S.E. 2d 6; Hatcher v. Williams, 225 N.C. 112, 33 S.E. 2d 617. Its ruling thereon is not subject to review on appeal except for palpable abuse. Gordon v. Gas Co., 178 N.C. 435, 100 S.E. 878; Hogsed v. Pearlman, 213 N.C. 240, 195 S.E. 789; Osborne v. Canton, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E. 2d 265; Byers v. Byers, 223 N.C. 85, 25…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Carolina Power & Light Co. v. BowmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Byers v. . ByersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Byers v. ByersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Hogsed v. . PearlmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Hughes v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Dobias v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Gallimore v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Modern Electric Company v. DennisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Gallimore v. STATE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS COM'NSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Spain v. BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.