Court Opinion

ID: 9810209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:43:29.881439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:28.904417
License: Public Domain

WalKER, J.,
concurring in result: The conclusion of the Court in this case lias my full concurrence, but'I take occasion to repeat here what was said by me in Cameron v. Power Co., 131 N. C., 99. I do not think this Court, in exercising its constitutional and remedial power of supervision over the lower courts (Const., Art. IV, sec. 8), should require a letter from the Judge before issuing the writ of certiorari to correct errors of statement in cases on appeal. This procedure is so contrary to the usual course of practice in the courts, and is fraught with so much danger that, in my judgment, it should no longer prevail. The capital objection to it is that it is ex-parte, when it is the right of every litigant to be heard upon any matter and everywhere when his interests may be put in jeopardy. The consent of the Judge to an amendment of the case on appeal, upon application of one of the parties without notice to the other, may often effect a change in a respect vital to the latter, and reverse what would otherwise have been the decision of this Court. Such a proceeding is so much out of the ordinary, and so opposed to good practice, that I must withhold my assent to its continuance as one which is sanctioned by this Court and indispensable to the amendment of a case on appeal. The Judge should either correct the case upon a formal petition presented to him, after notice to the other side, in which case his order of amendment could be certified to this Court when filed in the Clerk’s office, or we should issue the writ in the first instance and let him proceed in the matter as in other like cases. In my opinion, if there is error in the case suggested by petition to this Court, the complaining party is entitled to be heard *355by tbe Judge of the Superior Court, as matter of right, as much so as be is so entitled when there is any other mistake in the record. In my practice I have always found the Judges ready to correct inadvertencies, and I am persuaded to believe that they axe always anxious to present the case just as it was tried below. But there should be regularity in our procedure, instead of loose and careless practice, which in many instances may lead to injustice. The views entertained by me upon this subject are so well expressed by Mr. Justice Douglas in his concurring opinion in Cameron v. Power Co., that I take the liberty of referring to it. An order for a certiorari in such a case is no imputation upon the Judge who tried the case; on the contrary, the learned, able and upright Judges who preside in our Superior Courts will always welcome the opportunity thus afforded by regular procedure to correct any error or mistake which has inadvertently been committed.