{
  "id": 8606954,
  "name": "BRUCE McKEEL v. DR. JOS. R. LATHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "McKeel v. Latham",
  "decision_date": "1932-09-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "246",
  "last_page": "246",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 246"
    }
  ],
  "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": "202 N. C., 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626121
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0318-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1963,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.754522199318519e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5311616623208535
    },
    "sha256": "2131c0ecfd593d461c72b520a8ae32fa7d0d75426ff9a3c50ad5c83a03e8820c",
    "simhash": "1:8c774f1b532d3a14",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BRUCE McKEEL v. DR. JOS. R. LATHAM."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe order of the judge of the Superior Court denying plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to amend bis complaint, was made in the exercise of bis discretion (C. S., 515) and is therefore not subject to review by this Court, on plaintiff\u2019s appeal. There is no contention on the part of the appellant that there was an abuse of the discretion vested in the judge by the statute; at least, there is nothing in the record to sustain this contention.\nIt is well settled that no appeal lies to tbis Court from an order or judgment made or rendered by a judge of tbe Superior Court in tbe exercise of discretion vested in him by statute. Tbis appeal is therefore\nDismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ernest M. Green and, B. L. Ward for plaintiff.",
      "TP. P. Whitehurst and R. E. Whitehurst for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BRUCE McKEEL v. DR. JOS. R. LATHAM.\n(Filed 28 September, 1932.)\nAppeal and Error J b \u2014 Order rendered in exercise of discretion is not re viewable.\nA motion for leave to amend a complaint under C. S., 515 is addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, and Ms order denying tbe motion is not subject to review on appeal in tbe absence of gross abuse of tbis discretion.\nAppeal, by plaintiff from Crammer, J., at April Term, 1932, of CeaveN.\nDismissed.\nAt September Term, 1931, of the Superior Court of Craven County, there was a judgment in tbis action, overruling defendant\u2019s demurrer to the complaint. Defendant appealed from said judgment to the Supreme Court. At the bearing of tbis appeal, the judgment was reversed. 202 N. C., 318. It was held that the demurrer should have been sustained.\nAt April Term, 1932, of the Superior Court of Craven County, the action was again beard on plaintiff\u2019s motion for leave to amend bis complaint. C. S., 515. Tbe motion was denied by the judge, in the exercise of bis discretion. From judgment denying bis motion, and dismissing the action in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.\nErnest M. Green and, B. L. Ward for plaintiff.\nTP. P. Whitehurst and R. E. Whitehurst for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0246-01",
  "first_page_order": 314,
  "last_page_order": 314
}