{
  "id": 8651764,
  "name": "P. J. SINCLAIR et al. v. THE WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sinclair v. Western North Carolina Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1892-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "507",
  "last_page": "509",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 N.C. 507"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273346
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273370
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650060
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0255-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.141210829279633e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5079170638905974
    },
    "sha256": "5faa7aef8baf6fecf11f67011d3cc755400471c18230e6cd46c1782a4f8c2898",
    "simhash": "1:ce8a93ef71025374",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:01:29.703665+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "P. J. SINCLAIR et al. v. THE WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.:\nIt appears that both complaint and answer had been withdrawn at previous terms and amended complaint and answer filed without exception. Those matters-.are therefore not before us. Upon such amended complaint and answer (as the pleadings had stood since 1888), this was .an action by two tenants in common praying the appointment of commissioners to assess and value the lands required \u25a0by the defendant for the right-of-way. At Spring Term, 1892, one of the plaintiffs entered, without exception, a retraxit which specified that it was in no way to affect the rights of the other plaintiff. Thereupon the Court permitted the remaining plaintiff to amend by letting the suit .stand in the name of such plaintiff alone, also by reducing the description of the land (which it seems had been divided 'between the two original plaintiffs) to the land claimed by the remaining plaintiff, and omitting some recitals as \u25a0to prior proceedings, which the motion alleged had been inserted in the complaint by mistake, as such prior proceedings had no reference to this tract. After hearing argument, the Court allowed the amendment upon payment of costs by the plaintiff. The defendant excepted and appealed.\nThe amendment restricting the description of the land to that claimed by the plaintiff remaining in the action, was eminently proper after the retraxit of the other plaintiff. The entry of the retraxit was of itself an amendment as to parties, and had not been excepted to. The omission of the reference in the complaint to other proceedings at another time before the Court, could not prejudice the defendant. These amendments did not change the nature of the action, .and hence were within the discretion of the trial court, and not reviewable. The Code, \u00a7 273, and the numerous cases \u25a0cited under that section in Clark\u2019s Code.\nBesides, the leave to amend, if it had been reviewable, \u2022\u201cneither terminated the action nor deprived the appellant of .any substantial right which he might lose if the order was \u25a0not reviewed before final judgment. Hence he should have .had his exception noted in the record., that it might be reviewed on an appeal from the final judgment.\u201d Clement v. Foster, 99 N. C., 255; Welch v. Kinsland, 93 N. C. 281; Hadley v. Gray, Ibid., 195; Sneeden v. Harris, 107 N. C., 311.\nAppeal Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. P. J. Sinclair and W H. Malone, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. D. SchencJc and F. H. Busbee (by brief), and G. F. Bason, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "P. J. SINCLAIR et al. v. THE WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.\nAmendment \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Retraxit\u2014Appeal\u2014The Code, \u00a7 27S.\n1. In an action by two tenants in common to have the value of lands-required in construction of defendant\u2019s right-of-way assessed, and after the action had been pending for several years one of the-plaintiffs entered a retraxit, and the Court allowed the other to-amend his description of land so as to embrace his part still the-subject of suit: Held, no error.\n2. An order of amendment is not appealable.\nThis was a MOTION to amend pleadings,- heard before-Graves, J., at the Spring Term, 1892, of McDowell Superior Court.\nDefendant objected to Court allowing amendment and. appealed.\nMessrs. P. J. Sinclair and W H. Malone, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. D. SchencJc and F. H. Busbee (by brief), and G. F. Bason, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0507-01",
  "first_page_order": 539,
  "last_page_order": 541
}