Summary
In Aiken v. Manufacturing Co., 141 N.C. 339, in which the Court said that a casualty company, while not a necessary, was a permissible party, the policy was not before the Court or made part of the record.
Summary of this case from Clark v. BonsalOpinion
(Filed 16 May, 1906.)
Additional Parties — Power of Court — Discretion — Appeal.
The action of the court below in denying, without giving any reasons, plaintiff's motion to make an additional party defendant is not reviewable, where such party is a proper but not a necessary party.
ACTION by Purl Aiken, by his next friend, against Rhodhiss Manufacturing Company, heard by Justice, J., at March Term, 1906, of BURKE. From the denial of a motion to make an additional party defendant, the plaintiff appealed.
Avery Avery for plaintiff.
No counsel for defendant.
The plaintiff moved to amend the summons and complaint by making the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York a defendant, and for process against said company. The plaintiff, upon the facts set out in his complaint, might have brought his action against the defendant and the said Casualty Company. The said company is not, however, a necessary party, for the plaintiff may prosecute his action against the defendant alone. His Honor denied the motion without giving any reasons. As there is a presumption in favor of the correctness of the ruling, we assume his Honor denied the motion in the exercise of his discretion. As the Casualty Company is a proper, but not at all a necessary party, his Honor had the right to exercise his sound discretion, which is not reviewable. Jarrett v. Gibbs, 107 N.C. 304; Henderson v. Graham, 84 N.C. 496.
Affirmed.
Cited: Wood v. Kincaid, 144 N.C. 395; Clark v. Bonsall, 157 N.C. 274; Spruill v. Bank, 163 N.C. 45; Guthrie v. Durham, 168 N.C. 574, 576; Joyner v. Fiber Co., 178 N.C. 635.
(340)