From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bailey v. Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1897
27 S.E. 28 (N.C. 1897)

Opinion

(February Term, 1897.)

Practice — Filing Answer — Extension of Time — Discretion of Court.

The Court may, in its discretion, allow an answer to be filed after the expiration of the time limited therefor.

ACTION, heard before Norwood, J., at Fall Term, 1896, of MITCHELL, which was the Trial Term for the action. The Judge holding the previous term of the court had allowed defendants sixty days to file answer and an extension had been granted by plaintiff's counsel, who wrote, "You must file it before court." The answer was filed on Tuesday of the first week of court, being the day on which the court was opened. His Honor gave judgment for want of an answer, holding, as a matter of law, that he had not the power, under the circumstances, to grant further time. The defendants appealed.

Mr. E. J. Justice for defendants (appellants). (389)

No counsel contra.


Reversed. See The Code, sec. 274.

Cited: Woodcock v. Merrimon, 122 N.C. 735.


Summaries of

Bailey v. Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1897
27 S.E. 28 (N.C. 1897)
Case details for

Bailey v. Commissioners

Case Details

Full title:J. W. BAILEY v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MITCHELL COUNTY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1897

Citations

27 S.E. 28 (N.C. 1897)
120 N.C. 388

Citing Cases

Woodcock v. Merrimon

The fact that the defendants in the case consented to the order of March Term, 1897, did not make the order a…

Johnson v. Loftin

AFFIRMED. Cited: Adams v. Hayes, 120 N.C. 388; Reade v. Street, 122 N.C. 302; Collins v. Pettitt, 124 N.C.…