{
  "id": 8612723,
  "name": "HORACE F. CRUMP v. ECKERD'S, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crump v. Eckerd's, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1955-02-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "489",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 N.C. 489"
    }
  ],
  "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": "25 S.E. 2d 471",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600211
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 466",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8599327
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0240-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.E. 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "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": 189,
    "char_count": 2316,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.594203391136844e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48977218362923863
    },
    "sha256": "0e134e58ed2d9d2d43b573754737b42e42f36c8e8b911f81bbd7b7da40ae7920",
    "simhash": "1:2ec202168a962abd",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HORACE F. CRUMP v. ECKERD\u2019S, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Parker, J.\nEckerd\u2019s, Inc., is a Forth Carolina corporation. Eck\u00e9rd Drugs, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.\nG-.S. 1-163 is captioned \u201cAmendments in Discretion of Court.\u201d The material part of this statute reads: \u201cThe judge or court may, before and after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process or proceeding, ... by correcting a mistake in the name of a party . . .\u201d\nIt is not necessary for us to decide whether the plaintiff by his motion is seeking to correct a mistake in the name of the defendant, or is seeking to substitute a different corporation for the present defendant without service of process. The trial court in its discretion denied plaintiff\u2019s motion. No manifest abuse of discretion is made to appear. The court\u2019s ruling is not subject to review. Gordon v. Gas Co., 178 N.C. 435, 100 S.E. 878; Hogsed v. Pearlman, 213 N.C. 240, 195 S.E. 789; Byers v. Byers, 223 N.C. 85, 25 S.E. 2d 466; Pharr v. Pharr, 223 N.C. 115, 25 S.E. 2d 471.\nThe judgment of the lower court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Parker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh M. McAulay and Welling & Welling for Plaintiff, Appellant.",
      "Kennedy, Kennedy & Hiclcman for Defendant, Appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HORACE F. CRUMP v. ECKERD\u2019S, INC.\n(Filed 4 February, 1955.)\nPleadings \u00a7 22: Process \u00a7 14\u2014\nThe discretionary denial by the trial court of a motion to amend tbe pleadings and process is not reviewable in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Patton, Special J., March Extra Civil Term 1954 Of MECKLENBURG.\nMotion by the plaintiff that the court \u201cexercise its discretion by permitting and ordering the process and pleadings in this cause to be amended by striking out the words, \u2018Eckerd\u2019s, Incorporated,\u2019 wherever they may appear, and inserting in lieu thereof the words \u2018Eckerd Drugs, Incorporated,\u2019 a Delaware corporation; and that the said Eekerd Drugs, Incorporated, be allowed thirty days within which to answer or otherwise plead from date of service of said process.\u201d\nThe trial court, after hearing the evidence, made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered the following order: \u201cUpon the foregoing FINDINGS of Fact and Concdttsions of Law, and in the discretion of the Court, it is OedeRed that plaintiff\u2019s said motion be, and the same is hereby denied.\u201d\nThe plaintiff appealed assigning error.\nHugh M. McAulay and Welling & Welling for Plaintiff, Appellant.\nKennedy, Kennedy & Hiclcman for Defendant, Appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0489-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 528
}