Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 N.C. 335

10 S.E 465

Buie v. . Brown

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1889

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1889-09-05

Pleadings — Frivolous Answer— Amendment. This was a Motion for Judgment upon the pleadings heard before Clark, J., at May Term, 1887, of RobesoN Superior Court.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 2002

3 state decisions

201889189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Merrimon, C. J.

¶1 — after stating the case: It seems to us very clear that the answer was not frivolous. On the contrary, it raised material issues of fact that should have been submitted to a jury in the orderly course of procedure, and alleged equities which, if they exist, ought to be administered in the action.

¶2 It is true, the allegations of the answer are not so precise or positive as they might or properly ought to be, but the substance of the purpose and the nature of the defence relied upon appear with tolerable certainty.

¶3 It would be very much better if every pleading should be formal, certain, orderly, precise and as positive as its nature and the subject matter of it will allow, but, nevertheless, if it is intelligible, and the Court can see the substance of its purpose and the matter pleaded, it should be upheld. The Court ought not to hasten to condemn and disregard it. *337 Indeed, the statute (The Code, § 260) requires that, “In the-construction of a pleading for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations shall be liberally construed, with a view of substantial justice between the parties”; and it further provides (§ 261) that, “when the allegations of a pleading are so indefinite or uncertain that the precise nature of the charge or defence is not apparent, the Court may require the pleading to be made definite and certain by amendment.”' The purpose of the statute is to help the pleadings in proper cases by amendment with a view to promote justice. The Court may ex mero viotu direct appropriate amendments to-be made, or it may do so upon the application of a party interested.

¶4 The answer of the defendant to the allegation in the complaint in respect to the judgment for the balance of the purchase money is not definite or satisfactory — it seems to be-insincere and evasive — but the Court should not, on that-account have treated the whole answer as frivolous. Indeed, it should have required the defendant to make his answer in such respect certain, and so in other respects as well. It may be that the answer is false, but, treating it as a pleading— it is serious — raises important issues of fact, and discloses substantial grounds of defence.

¶5 The judgment must be set aside, and further proceedings had in the action according to law.

¶6 Error.

/104/nc/335 · .json · Public domain