{
  "id": 11252970,
  "name": "AIKEN v. MANUFACTURING CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Aiken v. Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1906-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "339",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "141 N.C. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": "84 N. C., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697021
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 120,
    "char_count": 1493,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3942971625691086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7982123668213861
    },
    "sha256": "262935e7062ed5bc59ba6505231adc46835f0ab6aa8a126234d2c57dad11d085",
    "simhash": "1:de41dd208e008cca",
    "word_count": 252
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:26.736193+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "AIKEN v. MANUFACTURING CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam,:\nThe plaintiff moved to amend tbe summons and complaint by making tbe Fidelity & Casualty Co., of New York, a defendant, and for process against said company. Tbe plaintiff, upon tbe facts set out in bis complaint, might have brought bis action against tbe defendant and tbe said Casualty Company. Tbe said company is not, however, a necessary party, for tbe plaintiff may prosecute bis action against the defendant alone. His Honor denied the motion without giving any reasons. As there is a presumption in favor of tbe correctness of tbe ruling, we assume His Honor denied tbe motion in tbe exercise of bis discretion. As the Casualty Company is a proper, but not at all a necessary party, His Honor bad tbe right to exercise bis sound discretion, which is not reviewable. Jarrett v. Gibbs, 107 N. C., 304; Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam,:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Avery & Avery for the plaintiff.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "AIKEN v. MANUFACTURING CO.\n(Filed May 16, 1906).\nAdditional Parties \u2014 Power of Court \u2014 Discretion\u2014Appeal.\nThe action of the court below in denying without giving any reasons, plaintiff\u2019s motion to make an additional party defendant is not reviewable, where such party is a proper, but not a necessary party.\nActioN by Purl Aiken, by bis next friend, against Ebodiss Manufacturing Oo., beard by Judge M. H. Justice, at tbe March Term, 1906, of tbe Superior Court of BuRKe. From tbe denial of a motion to make an additional party defendant, tbe plaintiff appealed.\nAvery & Avery for the plaintiff.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 369
}