{
  "id": 11276150,
  "name": "WILLIAM K. LANE, Adm'r., v. THE SEABOARD AND ROANOKE RAIL ROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lane v. Seaboard & Roanoke Rail Road",
  "decision_date": "1857-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "25",
  "last_page": "27",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "5 Jones 25"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 N.C. 25"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 Hawks' Rep. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hawks",
      "case_ids": [
        11275688
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/9/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Car. Law Repos. 472",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Car. Law Repos.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Car. Law Repos. 499",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Car. Law Repos.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3168,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.413,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3251514842686106e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6276414184765212
    },
    "sha256": "e7e88cefeecfdcbe882c9fc6532a17c6d2b300787bda083478c2eda49489e2ad",
    "simhash": "1:b046a9a4402acd2d",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:56.644691+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM K. LANE, Adm'r., v. THE SEABOARD AND ROANOKE RAIL ROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nOur act for the \u201c amendment of process, &c.,\u201d (see Rev. Code, ch. 3) is so comprehensive, and the construction Avhich our courts have always put upon it is so liberal, that the expression used by one of the Judges in the case of Davis v. Evans, 1 Car. Law Repos. 499, that \u201c any thing' may be amended at any time,\u201d has passed into one of the maxims of the law. This is almost literally true as to the amendment of the process and pleadings during the pendency of a suit. Thus, in the case of McClure v. Burton, 1 Car. Law Repos. 472, which was an action of covenant on a deed, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend, by striking out the names of some of the defendants, who, upon oyer, appeared not to be parties to the deed. In Grandy v. Sawyer, 2 Hawks\u2019 Rep. 61, the writ was allowed to be amended, by striking out some of the plaintiffs, and inserting others. Again, in Green v. Deberry, 2 Ire. Rep. 344, the writ was amended on the plaintiff\u2019s motion, by adding the names of other persons as plaintiffs. See also on this subject, Quiett v. Boon, 5 Ire. Rep. 9, and Phillipse v. Higdon, Busb. Rep. 380. In England, where the defendant was arrested by a wrong name, the plaintiff was permitted to amend by inserting the right one ; Stevenson v. Danvers, 2 Bos. and Pul. Rep. 109 ; Carr v. Slum, 7 Term Rep. 299.\nIn the present case, a summons was served upon the corporation in a wrong name, by service on one of the directors of the corporation. We cannot distinguish it in principle from process served on any other defendant in a wrong name. If the Court have power to amend in the latter case, as it undoubtedly has, we are unable to comprehend the force of the argument which would deprive it of power in the latter. When created, corporations become persons \u2014 -bodies politic it is true \u2014 but still persons, and when the power of suing and the liability to be sued is conferred and imposed upon them, it must be understood to be conferred and imposed under the same rules, regulations and restrictions which apply to natural persons, with such modifications only, as their peculiar nature makes necessary. It is not pretended but that they may claim the benefit of our act upon the subject of amendments, and they must submit to its operation when it is against them.\nPee Odeiam, The Judgment of the Sup. Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Strong and Dortch, for plaintiff.",
      "W. A. Wright, B. F. Moore and J. II. Bryan, for deft\u2019s."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM K. LANE, Adm'r., v. THE SEABOARD AND ROANOKE RAIL ROAD COMPANY.\nWhere a corporation lias boon brought into court under a wrong\u2019 name, the court has power to amend the process by striking out that name and inserting tlie right one.\nMotion to amend tbe writ; before Ellis, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Wayne Superior Court.\nThe proposition was to strike out \u201cthe Portsmouth and Roanoke Rail Road Company\u201d named as defendants, and substitute therefor \u201c The Seaboard and Roanoke Rail Road. Company.\u201d It appeared from the writ that it had been served on David A. Barnes, a director in the Seaboard and Roanoke Rail Road Company, by delivering to him a copy. The motion was allowed by his Honor, and the defendants appealed,\nStrong and Dortch, for plaintiff.\nW. A. Wright, B. F. Moore and J. II. Bryan, for deft\u2019s."
  },
  "file_name": "0025-01",
  "first_page_order": 33,
  "last_page_order": 35
}