Legal Opinion

Sams v. Cochran & Ross Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 19, 1924PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

The interesting and learned discussion of bailment and warehouseman, in the briefs of the defendant, we will not consider, as we do not think it necessary for the determination of this case.

Under our liberal practice, the court below, in its sound discretion, in furtherance of justice, can amend the pleading, before and after judgment, to conform to the facts proved, keeping in mind always that an amendment cannot change substantially the nature of the action or defense without consent. Our system is broadening and expanding more and more, with the view at all times that a trial should be had…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Dermott v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
  2. Commonwealth ex rel. Snyder v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1876
  3. Bacon v. CobbIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  4. People ex rel. Assyrian Asphalt Co. v. KentIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Steele v. BuckIllinois Supreme Court · 1871

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Fuchs Murane v. GoeWyoming Supreme Court · 1945
  2. O'Roak v. Lloyds Casualty Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  3. Miller's Mut. Fire Ins. Ass'n of Alton, Ill. v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Manassas Park Development Company v. OffuttSupreme Court of Virginia · 1962
  5. Michaux v. Paul Rubber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API