Summary
In Goodwin v. Fertilizer Works (1897), supra, Faircloth, J., said: "The plaintiff sued for a penalty of $200, before a justice of the peace, and the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded the statute of limitations.
Summary of this case from Biggs v. MoffittOpinion
(September Term, 1897.)
Practice — Amendment — Discretion of Judge — Appeal.
1. A motion to amend a complaint after answer has been filed will not be allowed as a matter of course.
2. The allowance or refusal of a motion to amend pleadings is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, and no appeal lies therefrom.
MOTION by plaintiff, in an action pending in WAKE, to amend the complaint by inserting a second cause of action, heard before Robinson, J., at September Term, 1897, of said court.
The motion was refused, and plaintiff appealed.
J. C. L. Harris, Douglass Holding, and B. M. Gatling for plaintiff.
Spier Whitaker and E. C. Smith for appellee.
The plaintiff sued for a penalty of $200, before a justice of the peace, and the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded the statute of limitations. On appeal in the Superior Court the plaintiff asked leave to amend his complaint by inserting a second cause of action, which was refused. He claimed the right, as of course, under the Code, sec. 272. The motion, coming after (92) the time for answering had expired, and after answer had been filed, was too late, as a matter of course. The privilege of amending is at the discretion of the court, and its decision is not reviewable. Comrs. v. Blair, 76 N.C. 136; Kron v. Smith, 96 N.C. 389; Clark's Code, p. 220.
Affirmed.
Cited: Whitaker v. Dunn, 122 N.C. 104; Goodwin v. Fertilizer Works, 123 N.C. 162.