Court Opinion

ID: 9813008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:53:38.662177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:36.693486
License: Public Domain

Allen, J.,
dissenting: I do not agree to tbe part of tbe opinion of tbe Court bolding that there was error in striking out tbe plea of tbe statute of limitations in tbe amended answer. Tbe judgment of bis Honor is presumed to be correct (Commis*102sioners v. Gill, 126 N. C., 87),, and. if the law vested him with discretion in. the matter, he is presumed to have exercised it. Pelletier v. Lumber Co., 123 N. C., 601; Balk v. Harris, 130 N. C., 381. The order of Judge Biggs allowing an amended answer to be filed was made at the Fall Term, 1911, and the answer was not filed until the Fall Term, 1912, more than one term of court having intervened between the mating of the order and the filing of the answer. In Sheek v. Sain, 127 N. C., 271, the Court says: “It is well settled that the court has the right to give further time to parties to plead. But this extension of time is within certain limits and cannot extend beyond the next term of court, unless by the consent of the parties. To attempt to give further time than this would be to trench upon the prerogative of the judge succeeding him.” 'It does not ap--pear from the record that the parties consented to any extension of time beyond the next term of court after Judge Biggs made his order, or that any leave was obtained to file the answer after it was prepared, and upon the authorities cited it would seem that the right to answer had expired and that it was then discretionary with the judge to permit it to remain on the files or strike it out, and that he is presumed to have exercised this discretion. His Honor was doubtless influenced in his action by the fact that there had been a former suit between the parties, which was dismissed because of an effort to settle and compromise and under an agreement that the statute of limitations would not be pleaded.