Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 16452
| Decision Date | 04 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 16452,16452 |
| Citation | 63 S.E.2d 53,218 S.C. 402 |
| Parties | VERNON v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Stevenson & Lindsay, Bennettsville, Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, Florence, for appellant.
Tison & Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.
The main question presented by this appeal is the right of the respondent to amend his complaint.
On January 23, 1946, Harvey C. Vernon and his wife, Lona Vernon, were traveling in a motor truck owned and driven by him, which was involved in a collision with a train of appellant at a railroad crossing within the corporate limits of the town of Cheraw, South Carolina. The respondent and his wife both residents of the state of North Carolina; the appellant is a corporation under the laws of the state of Virginia.
On June 5, 1947, Vernon instituted this action against appellant in the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County, in which he demanded judgment for the sum of $10,000 on account of property damage and personal injuries suffered by him growing out of the collision.
Thereafter, Lona Vernon brought an action on August 11, 1948, against the railroad company in the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County, in which judgment was prayed for the sum of $100,000 on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her in the same grade crossing collision. Upon the petition of the railroad company, this latter case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, where it was tried on December 16, 1948, resulting in a verdict in favor of Lona Vernon in the sum of $5,000.
On August 19, 1949, the respondent, Harvey C. Vernon, in the case at bar, upon notice, moved for leave to amend his complaint in certain particulars, to wit: (a) By alleging additional elements of damage by way of medical expenses and loss of consortium, claimed by him as a result of the personal injuries suffered by his wife in the collision; and (b) by increasing his demand for judgment from $10,000 to $100,000. The motion was based upon the record in this case, the transcript of testimony in the case of Lona Vernon against the same defendant, in the United States District Court; and upon the affidavit of S. S. Tison, of counsel for respondent. The motion to amend was granted, and from this order the appellant has appealed upon the ground that the court erred in allowing the additional allegations to be incorporated in the complaint by way of amendment.
The Code provides, Section 494, that the court may, before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect, or by inserting other allegations material to the case, or when the amendment does not change substantially the claim or defense by conforming the pleading or proceeding to the facts proved.
The court will, as a matter of course, allow any party to shape his own pleadings to suit himself, and, for this purpose, will permit him at any time before trial to amend his pleadings so as to present his own views on the question to be litigated, upon such terms as may be deemed equitable. There is no restriction on the power of the court to allow such amendments, even though their effect be to change entirely the whole cause of action, or the grounds of defense. Coral Gables v. Palmetto Brick Co., 183 S.C. 478, 191 S.E. 337; Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S.C. 574, 62 S.E. 1113; 2 Wait's Practice, pages 506-507.
The Code, as noted, places no limitation upon the power of the court to amend a pleading by correcting a mistake or by inserting other allegations material to the case in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper.
On the record in the case at bar, we see no error in the order of the circuit court allowing the complaint to be amended in the particulars referred to. Such amendment appears to be in furtherance of justice and without prejudice to the appellant.
All allowance of amendments to pleadings under the statute, Sec. 494, is addressed to the sound discretion of the Circuit Judge, and his action is not subject to review by this Court, unless legal error is clearly shown. Monteith v. Harby, 190 S.C. 453, 3 S.E.2d 250; Dunbar v. Fant, 174 S.C. 49, 176 S.E. 866.
It was stated in Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 81 S.C. 574, 62 S.E. 1113, 1114: 'Unless the amendment proposed relates to the same transaction or the same subject as the original complaint, then it is manifest the plaintiff can not claim to have made a mistake in the matter to which his pleading relates. When, however, the plaintiff makes the mistake of supposing one of his rights has been invaded by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholson v. Blanchette
...Wolff v. DuPuis, 233 Or. 317, 378 P.2d 707 (1963); Hewitt v. Pa. R. Co., 228 Pa. 397, 77 A. 623 (1910); Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 218 S.C. 402, 63 S.E.2d 53 (1951); Lindsey v. Kindt, 221 Ala. 169, 128 So. 143 (1935); Nuzzi v. United States Casualty Co., 121 N.J.L. 249, 1 A.2d 89......
-
Arant v. Stover, Civ. A. No. 69-665.
...by the term "consortium." Cook v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 196 S.C. 230, 13 S.E.2d 1, 133 A.L.R. 1144; Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 218 S.C. 402, 63 S.E.2d 53; Brown v. Finger, 240 S.C. 102, 124 S.E.2d 781; Sossamon v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 243 S.C. 552, 135 S.E.2d 87; H......
-
Page v. Winter
... ... 530] in this jurisdiction. Cook v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 196 S.C. 230, 13 S.E.2d 1, 133 A.L.R. 1144; Vernon v ... ...
-
Sossamon v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...v. Bryan, 158 Va. 880, 164 S.E. 554. Medical expense of wife paid by husband may not be recovered by her. Vernon v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 218 S.C. 402, 63 S.E.2d 53. We have held that a general allegation of damages will let in evidence and warrant a recovery of all such damages as n......
-
Chapter 15 Amendments and Supplemental Pleadings
...of the particular defense, and the parties argued the issue extensively in their briefs).[11] See, e.g., Vernon v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co., 218 S.C. 402, 406, 63 S.E.2d 53, 55 (1951).[12] Forrester v. Smith & Steele Builders, Inc., 295 S.C. 504, 507, 369 S.E.2d 156, 158 (Ct. App. 1988).[13] ......