Martin v. Young
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Citation | 85 N.C. 156 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | M. MARTIN v. JOHN A. YOUNG and others. |
CIVIL ACTION tried at Spring Term, 1881, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Eure, J.
A single point is presented in this case and to enable it to be understood, a very succinct statement of the facts will suffice.
In their answer the defendants deny having made any contract with the plaintiff individually, but say they did contract with a firm composed of the plaintiff and J. and E. Stowe, and set up a counterclaim against the said firm. To this the plaintiff replied that the contract sued on was made with himself and not the firm, and he pleaded statute of limitations to the defendants' counterclaim.
At fall term, 1878, the issues of fact were tried, and the jury found that the contract sued on was made with the firm of Martin & Stowe, and was the property of the firm. Thereupon the court allowed the plaintiff to amend the process and pleadings by making the partners (Stowe) parties plaintiff, requiring him, however, to pay all the costs up to that time. The amendment was accordingly made, the allegations of the complaint being the same as in the original, except that the contract sued on was alleged to have been made with the firm.
At spring term, 1879, the defendants answered the amended complaint, and said that by the amendment a new action was constituted against them, which they had a right to plead to as if the action had then first commenced, and accordingly they pleaded the statute of limitations to the plaintiff's demand.
At spring term, 1881, a trial by jury being waived, the judge presiding in the court below held that the plaintiff's action was not barred by the statute, and gave judgment accordingly, from which the defendants appealed.
Messrs. J. E. Brown, and Dowd & Walker, for plaintiff .
Messrs. Jones & Johnston, for defendants .
RUFFIN, J., after stating the facts.
It is insisted for the defendants that by law no amendment is permitted to be made, the effect of which can be to take away a defence that might be made to the action if begun at the time of the amendment asked for. Phillips v. Holland, 79 N. C., 31, and Henderson v. Graham, 59 N. C., 496. And again, that when by an amendment a new charge is introduced against the defendant, he make such defence to it, as if it were the foundation of an action then newly begun. Christmas v. Mitchell, 3 Ired. Eq., 535.
Conceding both of these propositions to be true, and they certainly are true according to the authorities cited, we still think his Honor's ruling in the court below was a correct one, and its correctness becomes the more apparent when tested by the principles contended for by the defendants.
If the amendment had been refused, and the action as it originally stood in the name of the plaintiff, Martin, had failed on account of the defect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cytron v. St. Louis Transit Co.
...Limitations (3 Ed.), sec. 9; Floyd v. Floyd, 90 Ind. 130; Vunk v. Railroad, 56 N. J. L. 395; Bradford v. Andrews, 20 Ohio St. 219; Martin v. Young, 85 N.C. 156; Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Mo. 489. The cause of is not changed, neither is a new claim asserted, by bringing in an additional necessar......
-
Union Pac Ry Co v. Wyler
...1 Sneed, 321; Railroad Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea, 351; Thomas v. Insurance Co., 108 Ill. 91; Roberson v. McIlhenny, 59 Tex. 615; Martin v. Young, 85 N. C. 156; Guild v. Parker, 43 N. J. Law, 430; Hiatt v. Auld, 11 Kan. 176; Rolling Mill Co. v. Monka, 107 Ill. The question, then, is, does the se......
-
The Midland Steel Company v. The Citizens National Bank of Kokomo
...321; Nashville, etc., R. Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea 351; Thomas v. Fame Ins. Co., 108 Ill. 91; Roberson v. McIlhenny, 59 Tex. 615; Martin v. Young, 85 N.C. 156; Guild v. Parker, 43 N.J.L. Hiatt v. Auld, 11 Kan. 176; North Chicago, etc., Co. v. Monka, 107 Ill. 340. In Union Pacific R. Co. v. Wyle......
-
Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens' Nat. Bank
...1 Sneed, 321;Railway Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea, 351;Thomas v. Insurance Co., 108 Ill. 91;Robertson v. McIlhanny, 59 Tex. 615;Martin v. Young, 85 N. C. 156; Guild v. Parker, 43 N. J. Law, 430; Hiatt v. Auld, 11 Kan. 140;Mill Co. v. Monka, 107 Ill. 340. In Railway Co. v. Wyler, supra, the supreme......