Court Opinion

ID: 9807691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:13:03.606374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:40.011137
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
dissenting: The concluding statement of the opinion in the former appeal was, “Plaintiff will be given reasonable time to amend her complaint, if she so desires. The judgment overruling the demurrer is reversed.” In my opinion, both the plaintiff and the judge below were correct in interpreting this as an order of this Court permitting plaintiff to amend. The words' are plain, clear and positive. Nor are they, in my opinion, altered in meaning by the sentence preceding the quoted statement, as that sentence merely distinguished the ease under consideration from an earlier case. As the sentence quoted above was pertinent and germane to the disposition of the case it was well within the scope of the former appeal (Riley & Co. v. Sears & Co., 156 N. C., 267), and became a part of the “law of the case.” As such it was binding on the lower court and is now binding on this Court. Stanback v. Haywood, 213 N. C., 535; George v. R. R., 210 N. C., 58; McGraw v. R. R., 209 N. C., 432; Groome v. Statesville, 208 N. C., 815; Betts v. Jones, 208 N. C., 410; and numerous interim cases back to and including James v. Withers, 126 N. C., 715. All matters determined on the first appeal are res judicata on subsequent trials, and appeals here. Warden v. McKinnon, 99 N. C., 251; Pretzfelder v. Ins. Co., 123 N. C., 164; Harrington v. Rawls, 136 N. C., 65. Where the trial court proceeds in substantial conformity with an opinion of this Court in a cause, *322tbe action of tbe court below in so doing cannot be questioned on a second appeal bere. Bradsher v. Cheek, 112 N. C., 838. A judgment of a trial court founded on tbe intimation and direction of tbis Court in a prior appeal will not be disturbed. Kramer v. R. R., 128 N. C., 269. Tbis is true even where it is found on tbe second appeal that tbe prior opinion was incorrect (Bank v. Furniture Co., 120 N. C., 475), or erroneous {Hospital Assn. v. B. B., 157 N. C., 460), and tbat the-earlier appeal was premature (Yates v. Ins. Co., 176 N. C., 401).
Not only am I convinced tbat we are precluded, by numerous authorities from disturbing what has been done in accordance with tbe prior opinion, but I am likewise convinced tbat tbis Court bad plenary power to grant to plaintiff an opportunity to amend. C. S., 547, provides, “Tbe judge or court may, before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading, process or proceeding. . . .” Nor is tbis Court dependent solely upon tbe statute for tbis power. As was pointed out in Bank v. Sherman, 101 U. S., 403, 25 L. Ed., 866, tbe allowance of amendments is incidental to tbe exercise of all judicial power, and is indispensable to-tbe ends of justice. "With bis usual precision and clarity, tbe late Dr. McIntosh stated tbe rule as follows: “Tbe courts have inherent power, independent of statute, to amend pleadings, and they may exercise tbis power in their discretion, unless prohibited by some statute, or vested rights would be disturbed, or tbe rights of tbe parties would be injuriously affected.” N. C. Practice and Procedure, p. 512. Tbis Court having exercised tbis discretion and there having been no challenge of tbe power, by petition to rehear or otherwise, tbe order permitting tbe amendment was binding upon tbe lower court and upon tbis Court in subsequent proceedings in tbis cause.
C. S., 515, on which the defendant relies in tbis case, cannot be held to affect tbe inherent jurisdiction of tbis Court over cases tbat are properly bere on appeal, nor prevent tbe Court from making any such orders as may appertain to justice, or prescribing or directing what may be done therein after tbe case goes back. It does not even partially suspend tbe power of tbis Court with respect to tbe allowance of amendments or directing tbat amendments be allowed; otherwise, tbe jurisdiction of tbe Court, and tbe rules and orders it makes, would be made subject to statutory control.
Tbat tbe Court bad power to permit tbe amendment to tbe pleading, and to make an order in tbat respect which must be obeyed by tbe court below, I think cannot be successfully controverted. Tbe order bere provided for a reasonable time to file an amendment, and it was clearly tbe intention of, tbe court to permit it. What tbat reasonable time might be was left to tbe discretion of tbe court below, but tbe order of tbis *323Court is unaffected by tbe fact that it did not set a definite time. The statute can only be considered as controlling where the Supreme Court has not exercised its constitutional and inherent power in the matter. Constitution of North Carolina, Article IV, sec. 8.
SchENOic and Sea well, JJ., concur in dissent.