Opinion ID: 1269312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allowance of Amendments to Complaints.

Text: The original complaints in the present cases, which were filed June 14, 1944, did not contain the allegations of the amended complaint which we have quoted above. The amended complaints were filed on November 26, 1948. On April 24, 1950, on motion of Paget, these pleadings were stricken from the files, for the reason, as recited in the court's orders, that the original complaints failed to state a cause of suit because they contained no allegations of compliance with § 67-101, OCLA (ORS 87.020), and the amended complaints were filed more than six months after the filing of the liens, and therefore the causes of suit therein stated were barred under the limitation of § 67-107, OCLA (ORS 87.055) (requiring that suit to foreclose must be commenced within six months after the lien is filed). 3. Upon the trial counsel for Drake moved for leave to amend the original complaints so as to incorporate the allegations with reference to the agency of Hugh Lindquist and his wife and the transfer of the title to the property to Zoe Lindquist which we have quoted  in other words, to reinstate the stricken amended complaints. The court permitted the amendments, and the ruling is challenged on two grounds, first, that upon the filing of the amended complaints the original complaints ceased to be a part of the record, and, therefore, after the amended complaints were stricken from the files, there were no pleadings left to amend; and, second, that the original complaints did not state a cause of suit and were a nullity and could not be amended after the six months' statute of limitations had run. As to the first objection, it is sufficient to say that we have heretofore held that the effect of an order striking an amended pleading is to restore the original pleading. Abrahamson v. Northwestern P. & P. Co., 141 Or 339, 348, 15 P2d 472, 17 P2d 1117. This is the rule in other jurisdictions, as shown by the authorities cited in the opinion in that case. See, also, 71 CJS 1058, Pleading § 509. 4. The other ground of challenge to the allowance of the amendments calls for consideration of the general rule that where an amended complaint, which introduces a new and different cause of action from that stated in the original complaint, is filed after the period of limitations has run, it will be regarded as the commencement of a new action which does not relate back to the time when the original complaint was filed and therefore is barred by the statute of limitations. See Fox v. Ungar, 164 Or 226, 98 P2d 717. The application of the rule in the case cited was disapproved as too strict in Ross v. Robinson, 174 Or 25, 147 P2d 204. We think that under the modern and more just and liberal view, which was fully developed by reference to the authorities in the Ross case, the allowance of the amendments in this case was proper. The precise point of attack here is that the original complaints did not state any cause of suit whatever. But that was also one of the claims of the defendant in the Ross case, which was a statutory action for death by wrongful act brought on behalf of the estate of the deceased and in which the original complaint failed to negative the existence of the preferred beneficiaries named in the statute. We had previously held that the complaint was demurrable in Ross v. Robinson, 169 Or 293, 124 P2d 918, 128 P2d 956. None the less, we ruled on the second appeal that an amended complaint which supplied the necessary averments was not vulnerable to demurrer on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, although such amended complaint was not filed until more than two years after accrual of the cause of action. We quoted with approval the pronouncement that an amendment should be allowed which does not operate totally to confer jurisdiction but merely supplies an additional jurisdictional averment essential to clothe the court with complete power to conduct the suit to a legal conclusion, Neubeck v. Lynch, 37 App (DC) 576, 37 LRA (ns) 813, and the statement of Mr. Justice Holmes in New York C. & H.R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 US 340, 67 L ed 294, 43 S Ct 122, that when a defendant has had notice from the beginning that the plaintiff sets up and is trying to enforce a claim against it because of specified conduct, the reasons for the Statute of Limitations do not exist, and we are of opinion that a liberal rule should be applied. Each of the original complaints in the instant case alleged that plaintiffs furnished materials to the defendant, Hugh Lindquist, at his special instance and reqeust, to be used in the construction of a building on described property, and that the defendants Hugh Lindquist and Zoe Lindquist, husband and wife, were the owners or reputed owners of said property, and said construction was commenced and carried on with their full knowledge, approval, and consent. We are not prepared to say that in the absence of demurrer these allegations would not have been deemed sufficient to charge that Hugh Lindquist was agent for his wife in the transactions. But, that apart, we hold that, under the principles approved by us on the second appeal of Ross v. Robinson, the amendments were properly allowed and related back to the time the original complaints were filed. Andersen v. Turpin, 172 Or 420, 429, 142 P2d 999. To hold that the filing of the amended complaints was tantamount to the commencement of new suits, and therefore that plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations, would be to revive theories touching procedure which we discarded in Ross v. Robinson.