Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Austin v. . Clarke

Austin v. . Clarke, 70 N.C. 458 (N.C. 1874)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1874-01-05
Topic
general

ByNüM, J. The C. C. P. invests the Court with ample powers, in all questions of practice and procedure, both as to amendments and continuances, to be exercised at the discretion of the J udge presiding, who is presumed’, best, to know what orders and what indulgence will promote the ends of justice, in each particular case- With the exercise of this discretion, we cannot interfere, and it is not the subject of appeal. C.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Austin v. . Clarke. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
17 opinions
AUSTINv. CLARKE,70 N.C. 458(1874)
ROBT. H. AUSTIN, COUNTY TREASURER, v. HENRY T. CLARKE.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1874.)
All questions of practice and procedure as to amendments and continuances arising on a trial in the Court below, are in the discretion of the presiding Judge, from whose judgment thereon there is no appeal.
CIVIL ACTION, motion to file an amended answer, tried byMoore, J., at the Fall Term, 1873, of the Superior Court of EDGECOMBE County.
The plaintiff, Treasurer of Edgecombe County sued the defendant, the former Chairman of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of thatPage 373county, for the balance of a fund in his hands, belonging to the county. Defendant answers the complaint, and the plaintiff demurred to the answer. His Honor sustained the demurrer, whereupon the plaintiff moves for judgment, and defendant moves for time to file amended answer. The plaintiff's motion is refused and time given to defendant.

From this judgment plaintiff appealed.
Battle Son for appellant.No Council Contra, in this Court.
BYNUM, J.
The C. C. P. invests the Court with ample powers, in all questions of practice and procedure, both as to amendments and continuances, to be exercised at the discretion of the Judge (459) presiding, who is presumed, best, to know what orders and what indulgence will promote the ends of justice, in each particular case. with the exercise of this discretion, we cannot interfere, and it is not the subject of appeal. C. C. P., sec. 133.

There is no error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.McCurry v. McCurry,82 N.C. 298;Gilchrist v. Kitchen,86 N.C. 22;Kendall v. Briley86 N.C. 58;Long v. Logan,86 N.C. 538;Penniman v.Daniel,93 N.C. 334;Jaffray v. Bear,98 N.C. 59;Clemmons v. Field,99 N.C. 402;Griffin v. Light Co.,111 N.C. 438;Woodcock v. Merrimon,122 N.C. 735;S. v. Dewey,139 N.C. 560;Bernhardt v. Dutton,146 N.C. 208;Church v. Church,158 N.C. 566;S. v. Sauls,190 N.C. 813.