Jarrett v. . Gibbs

Sep 5, 1890
Reporters:
,
Before:
Claek
Claek, J.:

The Code, § 273, empowers the Court, before or after judgment, to “amend any pleading, process or ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍proceeding by adding or sinking out the name of any party.” The refusal or granting of such motion is a matter of discretion and not reviewable, unless the refusal is placed, as in this ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍casé, on the wrant of power, and then an appeal lies. Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496.

Even if the effect of the amendment had been to allow a substitution of one plaintiff for another, it ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍would have been within the competency of the Court. Reynolds v. Smathers, 87 N. C , 24, and cases there cited. Jarratt, however, had been made a party two years before, without exception. The case stood, ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍therefoie, as if both plaintiffs had been named in the original process. The motion of the plaintiff Murphy to be allowed to wi-hdraw and to amend the process and pleadings by striking ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‍out her name, was within the power and rested in the discretion of the Court.

Per Curiam. Error.