{
  "id": 8620099,
  "name": "CHARLIE DUDLEY, by his Next Friend, CALVIN DUDLEY v. ROBERT DUDLEY and his wife, VERA MAE DUDLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dudley ex rel. Dudley v. Dudley",
  "decision_date": "1959-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "96",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "250 N.C. 95"
    }
  ],
  "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": "61 S.E. 2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605934
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596364
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219461
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0662-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 3105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.411,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.903932100147132e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46074732542321967
    },
    "sha256": "08518eec50730e24214e351caa8046066ec46f776f8ddc9ce8b701e3b4870673",
    "simhash": "1:2fac2cf26e472014",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:40.326881+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLIE DUDLEY, by his Next Friend, CALVIN DUDLEY v. ROBERT DUDLEY and his wife, VERA MAE DUDLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Higgins, J.\nG.S. 1-131 provides: \u201cWithin thirty days after the return of the judgment upon the demurrer, if there is no appeal, or within thirty days after the receipt of the certificate from the Supreme Count, if there is an appeal, if the demurrer is sustained the plaintiff may move, upon, three days\u2019 notice, for leave to amend the complaint. If this is not granted, judgment shall be entered dismissing the action.\u201d Burrell v. Transfer Co., 244 N.C. 662, 94 S.E. 2d 829; Mills v. Richardson, 240 N.C. 187, 81 S.E. 2d 409; Teague v. Oil Co., 232 N.C. 469, 61 S.E. 2d 345.\nThe statute and the decisions 'authorized dismissal of the action if leave -to amend is not obtained. Judge Gambill merely dismissed the amended complaint, thus leaving the cause upon the docket without a pleading. \u201cAn order sustaining the demurrer in effect merely strikes the complaint. The action remains on the docket sans a pleading and will be dismissed only in the event the plaintiff fails to amend or file a new complaint as he is by statute permitted to do.\u201d Teague v. Oil Co., supra.\nJudge Gambill\u2019s order dismissing the amended complaint (filed without leave) did not dismiss the action but merely left it still, pending without a pleading. The defendant has the right to move that the \u2022action foe dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory l-equirement. The order dismissing the amended complaint is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Higgins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., Robert M. Bryant for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "J. F. Motsinger for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLIE DUDLEY, by his Next Friend, CALVIN DUDLEY v. ROBERT DUDLEY and his wife, VERA MAE DUDLEY.\n(Filed 8 April, 1959.)\nPleadings \u00a7\u00a7 20 y\u00bf, 21\u2014\nPlaintiff lias .the right to move for leave to file an amended complaint upon three days\u2019 notice after judgment sustaining a demurrer from which no appeal is taken, but he does not have the right to file such amendment without notice and without leave, G-..S. 1-131, and such amended complaint filed without notice or leave is properly dismissed, and the defendant may thereafter move that the action he dismissed for failure to comply with the statute.\nAppeal by 'plaintiff from Gambill, J., December, 1958 Term, FoR-syth Superior Court.\nCivil action to remove cloud upon title to specifically described rea-l estate and bave plaintiff declared to be \u00a1the true owner. The defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint andi on September 9, 1958, Judge Sharp entered a judgment sustaining the demurrer but retaining the cause for further orders. There was neither exception to, nor appeal from the judgment. On September 17, 1958, the plaintiff, without notice and without leave of the court, attempted to file an amendment to the original complaint. The defendant moved in writing \u201cto dismiss the alleged amendment to the complaint,\u201d among other grounds, for failure to obtain leave of the count to file it. On November 21, 1958, Judge Gambill, after hearing, entered an order \u201cThat the amendment to the complaint filed in this cause on \u00a1the 17 day of September, 1958, be, and the same is hereby dismissed.\u201d The plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nClyde C. Randolph, Jr., Robert M. Bryant for plaintiff, appellant.\nJ. F. Motsinger for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 136
}