{
  "id": 8652263,
  "name": "W. H. J. GOODWIN v. CARALEIGH PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER WORKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goodwin v. Caraleigh Phosphate & Fertilizer Works",
  "decision_date": "1897-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. 91"
    }
  ],
  "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": "96 N. C., 389",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650350
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0389-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N. C., 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8687020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/76/0136-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1494,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6206723571957338e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6871819553958551
    },
    "sha256": "7ef7cd4545978f96eb689ab21f391471301d6c83760219a8de46fbdcdba90d6f",
    "simhash": "1:9a2f97a787763a6a",
    "word_count": 258
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:04.541275+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. H. J. GOODWIN v. CARALEIGH PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER WORKS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, C. J.:\nThe plaintiff sued for a penalty \u2022 of $200, before a Justice of the Peace, and the defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded the statute of limitations. On appeal in the Superior Court, the plaintiff asked leave to amend his complaint by inserting a second, cause of action, which was refused. He claimed the right,. as of course, under The Code, Sec. 272. The motion, coming after the time for answering had expired and after answer had been filed, was too late, as a matter of course. The privilege of amending pleadings is at the discretion of the court, and its decision is not reviewable. Commissioners of Alamance v. Blair, 76 N. C., 136; Kron v. Smith, 96 N. C., 389; Clark\u2019s Code, pp. 220.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. J. O. L. Harris, Douglass & Holding and B. M. Gatling, for plaintiff (appellant).",
      "Messrs. Spier Whitaker and E. G. Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. H. J. GOODWIN v. CARALEIGH PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER WORKS.\nPractice \u2014 Amendment\u2014Discretion of Judge \u2014 Appeal.\n1. A motion to amend a complaint after answer has been filed will not be allowed as a matter of course\n2. The allowance or refusal of a motion to amend pleadings is a matter within the discretion of the trial Judge and no appeal lies therefrom.\nMotioN by plaintiff in a civil action pending in Waice Superior Court to amend the complaint by inserting a second cause of action, heard before Robinson, J., at September Term, 1897, of said Court. The motion was refused and plaintiff appealed.\nMessrs. J. O. L. Harris, Douglass & Holding and B. M. Gatling, for plaintiff (appellant).\nMessrs. Spier Whitaker and E. G. Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 121,
  "last_page_order": 122
}