{
  "id": 11269095,
  "name": "SUPREME COUNCIL A. A. S. R. v. GRAND LODGE OF A. F. AND A. M. OF NORTH CAROLINA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Supreme Council A. A. S. R. v. Grand Lodge of A. F. & A. M.",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "222",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 N.C. 221"
    }
  ],
  "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., 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650473
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273702
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 N. C., 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0162-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2419,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2391098863292802
    },
    "sha256": "e5c7b93bd3c2119eebe3684132f46897166c5d456cf4dd04c4a4afdd500e133e",
    "simhash": "1:6497c4740f98f6fa",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:48.430184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Claek, O. J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SUPREME COUNCIL A. A. S. R. v. GRAND LODGE OF A. F. AND A. M. OF NORTH CAROLINA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuRiam.\nThe position taken in the defendant\u2019s brief that the appeal is premature must be sustained. Goodwin v. Fertilizer Works, 123 N. C., 162.\nIf we were to hold otherwise, parties could appeal from every adverse ruling-in the Superior Court, with the result that the docket of this Court would be incumbered with unnecessary matter, the costs to litigants greatly increased, and trials needlessly delayed.\nAn exception ought to have been .entered and the trial proceeded with.\nWe are, however, of opinion that the motion to amend was properly denied.\nIf the facts alleged therein are competent against the defendant as evidence of malice, they may be offered under the allegations of the original complaint; and if relied on as a cause of action, they introduce a new and distinct cause of action, which is not permissibl\u00e9, when resisted. McNair v. Buncombe County, 93 N. C., 364; Clendennin v. Turner, 96 N. C., 416.\nAppeal dismissed.\nClaek, O. J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lindsay Patterson for plaintiff.",
      "S. M. Gabtis, Alexander, Parrish & Korner, and A. B. Andrews, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SUPREME COUNCIL A. A. S. R. v. GRAND LODGE OF A. F. AND A. M. OF NORTH CAROLINA.\n(Filed 22 April, 1914.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u2014 Pleadings \u2014 Amendments\u2014Fragmentary Appeals.\nAn appeal from an order of the lower court permitting an amendment to a pleading is premature and will be dismissed in the Supreme Court.\n2. Actions \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Amendments\u2014New Cause of Action \u2014 Libel \u2014Boycott\u2014Appeal and Error.\nA new and distinct cause of action is not allowable by amendment to the complaint, and where the original complaint alleges a cause of action for libel, it may not be amended so as to maintain an action for damages arising from an alleged boycott, by the defendant; for if the amendment be for the purpose alone of showing malice, it was unnecessary, and if relied on as a cause of action it was not permissible by amendment.\nClark, C. J., did not sit on this case.\nAepeal by defendant from Lane, J., at November Term, 1913, of Foesyth.\nThis is an action to recover damages for an alleged libelous publication of date 14 January, 1909.\nAt the trial terra the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint theretofore filed, which declared upon the publication, by alleging that the defendant declared a boycott against the plaintiff in the Spring of 1908.\nHis Honor denied the motion as matter of law, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nLindsay Patterson for plaintiff.\nS. M. Gabtis, Alexander, Parrish & Korner, and A. B. Andrews, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 264
}