State Ex Rel. Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ACTION to enforce penalty for sale of fertilizers without having the tags required by law affixed to the bags, heard before Timberlake, J., at March Term, 1898, of Wake Superior Court. Motion to file amended complaint. Motion allowed. Defendant excepted and appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
It was held in this case (121 N. C., 91) that the allowance or refusal of a motion to amend pleadings is a matter within the discretion of the presiding judge and no appeal lies. But this is subject to the exception that the amendment of the complaint does not assert ‘ ‘a cause of action wholly different from that set out in the original complaint, does not change the subject of the action nor deprive the defendant of de-fences he would have had to a new action.” Parker v. Harden, 122 N. C., 111, quoting King v. Dudley, 113 N. C., 167, and cases cited in Clark’s Code (2nd Ed.) pp.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ely v. . EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Gillam v. Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- King v. . DudleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Parker v. . HardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Sams v. Price, Welch & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Anderson v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Hockfield v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Home Real Estate, Loan & Insurance v. LockerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Fishell v. . EvansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Morris v. . CleveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.