Legal Opinion

Cody v. Hovey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Since the judge based his refusal to allow the amendment on a want of power under the law his judgment becomes reviewable in this Court. Balk v. Harris, 130 N. C., 381, 41 S. E., 940; Martin v. Bank, 131 N. C., 121, 123, 42 S. E., 558.

If we concede that it was necessary for the defendant to comply with the terms of C. S., 515, as a condition precedent to obtaining leave of court to amend his answer, the successful application of the plaintiff for a continuance of the hearing must be held as a waiver of any defect of notice, which reached him only two days after the expiration of the ten-day…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Brewer v. RingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  2. Deligny v. Tate Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Brewer v. . Ring and ValkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Page v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  5. Bullard v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Brewer v. . Ring and ValkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  2. Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  3. Barber v. . EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. Rayburn v. . RayburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API