majority"> Walker, J.,

after stating tbe case: Tbe appeal of tbe defendants carried tbe entire case into the Superior Court, under tbe provisions of tbe act of 1887, cb. 276; Revisal, sec. 614; Clark’s Code (3d Ed.), sec. 255, and notes, at pp. 266 et seq., and that court was then vested with full jurisdiction of it. If it appeared to tbe presiding Judge that Robert and Bettie Bailey, who bad acquired an interest in tbe land described in tbe pleadings, should be made parties, in order that there may be a final determination of tbe matters in controversy upon tbe merits, it was within tbe power of tbe court to permit them to come in and'answer tbe petition, and thereafter to proceed in tbe cause according to tbe statute and tbe course and practice of tbe court. Tbe act of 1887 has been liberally construed, as it is remedial in its nature and was evidently intended to confer ample powers upon tbe Superior Court when it acquired jurisdiction by appeal or otherwise of a case which was originally commenced before tbe Clerk. Tbe statute has been so often construed so as to suppress tbe former *135 mischief and to advance tbe remedy that it seems necessary only to cite tbe cases in order to support tbe ruling of tbe court below. Ledbetter v. Pinner, 120 N. C., 455; Faison v. Williams, 121 N. C., 152; Lictie v. Chappell, 111 N. C., 347; In re Anderson, 132 N. C., 243; Roseman v. Roseman, 127 N. C., 494; Railroad v. Stewart, 132 N. C., 248; Taylor v. Gooch, 110 N. C., 391; Oldham v. Reiger, 145 N. C., 254. At tbe time tbis proceeding was brought, A. B. Robbins bad ,an interest, if not an estate, in tbe land, under tbe contract with John L. Bailey. It is alleged that be bad paid nearly half of tbe purchase money at that time to Bailey, and was also in tbe actual possession of tbe land. He was at least a proper party to tbe proceeding, and tbe plaintiffs assert title under him as well as under John L. Bailey. However tbis may be, tbe law has conferred jurisdiction upon tbe court in tbe broadest terms to allow amendments and make new parties, in order that cases may be tried upon their real merits and that failure of justice may be prevented. Revisal, secs. 507, 512 and 614; Clark’s Code, secs. 255, 273, 274, and notes. We do not think tbe discretion of tbe Judge was improperly exercised in tbis case. Tbe delay in registering tbe deeds has no bearing upon tbe question involved.

No Error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress