Aiken v. Manufacturing Co.
Aiken v. Manufacturing Company.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,:
The plaintiff moved to amend tbe summons and complaint by making tbe Fidelity & Casualty Co., of New York, a defendant, and for process against said company. Tbe plaintiff, upon tbe facts set out in bis complaint, might have brought bis action against tbe defendant and tbe said Casualty Company. Tbe said company is not, however, a necessary party, for tbe plaintiff may prosecute bis action against the defendant alone. His Honor denied the motion without giving any reasons. As there is a presumption in favor of tbe correctness of tbe ruling, we assume His Honor denied tbe motion in tbe exercise of bis discretion. As the Casualty Company is a proper, but not at all a necessary party, His Honor bad tbe right to exercise bis sound discretion, which is not reviewable.
Jarrett v. Gibbs, 107 N. C., 304 ;
Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.