Dockery v. Fairbanks-morse & Co. Inc
| Decision Date | 15 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | (No. 415.) |
| Citation | 90 S.E. 501 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | DOCKERY. v. FAIRBANKS-MORSE & CO., Inc. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Richmond County; Adams, Judge.
Action by John C. Dockery against Fairbanks-Morse & Co., Incorporated. From an order striking out an amended complaint, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Lowdermilk & Dockery and John P. Cameron, all of Rockingham, for appellant.
A. R. McPhail, of Rockingham, for appellee.
The complaint alleged damages by reason of false representations and breach of guarantees in a contract for the sale of an engine. The case came on for trial at September term, 1916. The evidence tending to show fraud in the sale of theengine and in procuring the contract Carter, J., ordered a mistrial and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. When the cause came on again for trial at March term, 1916, before Adams, J., counsel for the defendant moved to strike out the amended complaint, for the reason that it set up a new cause of action. The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff appealed. The only question presented is as to the authority of the trial judge to permit an amendment alleging fraud in an action for damages for false representations and breach of warranties in the original sale.
The defendant was in court, and the amendment alleging the fraud was germane to the original complaint, and it was in the discretion of the trial judge to permit the amended complaint to be filed. If this had been done during the trial and the nature of the amendment was such that the defendant would have been taken by surprise, not being prepared to meet the charge of fraud, then it would have been error not to withdraw a juror and grant the defendant a continuance, but this was done. The defendant had six months in which to prepare to meet the charge of fraud before the case was again called for trial.
The Code favors liberal allowance of amendments in order that cases may be tried on their merits. There could have been no advantage in dismissing the plaintiff's action and requiring him to bring a new action setting up what is now alleged in the amended complaint. The court in its sound discretion could allow the amendment which was simply an additional ground to that alleged in the original complaint. Joyner v. Early, 139 N. C. 49, 51 S. E. T78; Worth v. Trust Co., 151 N. C. 196, 65 S. E. 918; Pritchard v. Railroad, 166 N. C. 535, 82 S. E. 875; 31 Cyc. 409, 410, 411.
If the amendment was not in the terms authorized by Judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist.. 195 N.C. 439, 142 S. E. 477; Phillips v. Ray, 190 N.C. 152, 129 S. E. 177; Dockery v. Fair banks-Morse Co., 172 N.C. 529, 90 S. E. 501; May v. Lumber Co., 119 N.C. 96, 25 S. F. 721; Henry v. Hilliard, 120 N.C. 479, 27 S. E. 130; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N......
-
Calloway v. Ford Motor Co.
...the (party) to amend. State v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 205 N.C. 123, 126, 170 S.E. 134, 135 (1933). Accord, Dockery v. Fairbanks, 172 N.C. 529, 90 S.E. 501; 29 N.C.L.Rev. 3, 20 (1950). In Hardin v. Greene, 164 N.C. 99, 80 S.E. 413 (1913), at the Fall Term 1912, the presiding judge m......
-
East Coast Fertilizer Co. Inc v. Hardee
...is erroneous. Wellons v. Lassiter, 200 N. C. 474, 157 S.E. 434; Caldwell v. Caldwell, 189 N.C. 805, 128 S.E. 329; Dockery v. Fairbanks-Morse Co., 172 N.C. 529, 90 S.E. 501; Bland v. Faulkner, 194 N.C. 427, 139 S.E. 835; Rutherford College v. Payne, 209 N.C. 792, 184 S.E. 827. A judgment of ......
-
Parker v. Mecklenburg Realty &
...nature and may be allowed in the sound discretion of the trial judge." Brown, J., in Hdw. Co. v. Banking Co., supra; Dockery v. Fairbanks, 172 N. C. 529, 90 S. E. 501; Currie v. Malloy, 185 N. C. 206, 116 S. E. 564. The cause of action stated in the original complaint was the fraudulent pro......