{
  "id": 8614478,
  "name": "TOWN OF ROCKINGHAM v. MRS. QUEEN COLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Town of Rockingham v. Coley",
  "decision_date": "1930-11-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "745",
  "last_page": "746",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "199 N.C. 745"
    }
  ],
  "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": "178 N. C., 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272765
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0435-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20717539902905535
    },
    "sha256": "512372ca1cda88c5fe175359302a4ad221eb5f97090038cd4e50b94bfa2730d2",
    "simhash": "1:df809baa3e6d4e77",
    "word_count": 242
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:33.288027+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TOWN OF ROCKINGHAM v. MRS. QUEEN COLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis is an action to recover $705.63 as assessments on the defendant\u2019s abutting lot for improvements made by the plaintiff in 1914 on 'Washington and Randolph streets. The defendant denied liability and pleaded the statute of limitations. When the ease was called for trial the plaintiff made a motion to amend its complaint by pleading chapters 309 and 326 of the Private Laws of 1911. The motion was denied and the plaintiff excepted.\nThe appellant admits that the action cannot he maintained unless the amendment is allowed. Whether a pleading shall be amended is ordinarily a matter within the discretion of the judge or the trial court, and the exercise of discretion is not reviewable except for palpable abuse. Gordon v. Gas Co., 178 N. C., 435. We find nothing in the record which tends to indicate an abuse of discretion by the judge who presided at the trial. Judgment\nAf&rmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. G. McLeod for appellcvni.",
      "J. G. Sedberry for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOWN OF ROCKINGHAM v. MRS. QUEEN COLEY.\n(Filed 19 November, 1930.)\nPleadings A c \u2014 Motion to be allowed to amend is addressed to discretion of trial court, and his disposition thereof is not reviewable.\nAs to whether a party to an action be allowed to amend his pleadings is ordinarily a question directed to the discretion of the trial judge and not reviewable on appeal.\nAppeal by plaintiff from McElroy, J., at July Term, 1930, of Rich-MOND.\nAffirmed.\nM. G. McLeod for appellcvni.\nJ. G. Sedberry for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0745-01",
  "first_page_order": 813,
  "last_page_order": 814
}