{ "id": 8573624, "name": "HANNAH VESTER STRICKLAND and husband, BOBBY STRICKLAND; JOHN MILTON VESTER and wife, MADELINE VESTER; and FRANK LANE VESTER v. H. P. JACKSON and wife, ANNIE S. JACKSON", "name_abbreviation": "Strickland v. Jackson", "decision_date": "1963-09-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "190", "last_page": "191", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "260 N.C. 190" } ], "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": "259 N.C. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559240 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0081-01" ] }, { "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": "107 S.E. 2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620099 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E. 2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8609216 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567161 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0064-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 232, "char_count": 3137, "ocr_confidence": 0.532, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.470884544950758e-08, "percentile": 0.4451655289555492 }, "sha256": "f165781e4f25d9db5ac061cc5a71d1e1b1b600ae9ea6fc3c1144a3300627ce2e", "simhash": "1:8d2a77372039b666", "word_count": 525 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HANNAH VESTER STRICKLAND and husband, BOBBY STRICKLAND; JOHN MILTON VESTER and wife, MADELINE VESTER; and FRANK LANE VESTER v. H. P. JACKSON and wife, ANNIE S. JACKSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HiggiNS, J.\nThe parties to the present controversy have shown a disposition to stand strictly upon their legal rights. Discretionary power vested in the judges of superior court to permit amendments to pleadings (G.S. 1-161; Electric Co. v. Dennis, 255 N.C. 64, 120 S.E. 2d 533; Dobias v. White, 240 N.C. 680, 83 S.E. 2d 785;) has not been invoked.\nThe appeal from the Mintz judgment had the effect of suspending further proceedings pending the appeal. The suspension, however, was lifted when this Court\u2019s affirming Certificate was received in the Superior Court of Pitt County on April 3, 1963. As of that date the rights of the parties were fixed by G.S. 1-131, with which the challenged order conformed. The plaintiffs had authority to amend within 30 days. Dudley v. Dudley, 250 N.C. 95, 107 S.E. 2d 918; Teague v. Oil Co., 232 N.C. 469, 61 S.E. 2d 345. Judge Hubbard\u2019s order of April 19,1963, neither added to nor took from the rights of either party.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 amendment of May 13, 1963, was not filed within 30 days. Consequently, the order of Judge Latham striking the amendment is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "HiggiNS, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sam B. Underwood, Jr., for plaintiffs, appellants.", "James & Hite, by Kenneth G. Hite, for defendants, appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HANNAH VESTER STRICKLAND and husband, BOBBY STRICKLAND; JOHN MILTON VESTER and wife, MADELINE VESTER; and FRANK LANE VESTER v. H. P. JACKSON and wife, ANNIE S. JACKSON.\n(Filed 18 September 1963.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 59; Pleadings \u00a7 24\u2014\n\u25a0Where the Superior Court sustains demurrer and grants leave to amend, and plaintiff appeals therefrom, the appeal stays further proceedings, but upon certification of decision affirming the judgment the thirty-day period begins to run, and an amendment filed after the thirty-day period may -be stricken. An order of the Superior Court \u201cratifying and affirming\u201d a decision of the Supreme -Court does not affect the rights of either party.\nAppeal from Latham, S.J., May, 1963 Term. Pitt Superior Court.\nThe first chapter in this civil action is recorded in this Court\u2019s opinion reported in 259 N.C. 81. The pleadings are there analyzed.\nAt the September Term, 1962, Judge Mintz entered an order sustaining the demurrer and allowing the plaintiffs 30 days in which to amend. The plaintiffs, refusing to amend, appealed. On March 20, 1963, this Court filed its opinion affirming the order. This Court\u2019s Certificate was received by, and recorded in, the Superior Court of Pitt County on April 3, 1963.\nOn April 19, 1963, Judge Hubbard, upon motion of the defendants\u2019 counsel, entered an order in the Superior Court of Pitt County \u201cthat the opinion of the Supreme Court in said action be, and the same is hereby in all respects ratified and affirmed.\u201d On May 13, 1963, the plaintiffs attempted to file in the Superior Court of Pitt County an amendment to the complaint. At the May 27, 1963 Term, the defendants moved to strike the proposed amended complaint upon the ground it was not filed within the 30 days allowed by Judge Mintz. After hearing, Judge Latham entered an order striking the amendment upon the ground it was not timely filed. The plaintiffs again excepted and appealed.\nSam B. Underwood, Jr., for plaintiffs, appellants.\nJames & Hite, by Kenneth G. Hite, for defendants, appellees." }, "file_name": "0190-01", "first_page_order": 230, "last_page_order": 231 }