Hardy and Moye, Partners v. Mayo

The first exception is directed to his Honor's refusal to permit the respondent to amend her answer by alleging title by adverse possession for more than 20 years. The exception cannot be sustained. After the time for answering a petition or complaint has expired, the respondent or defendant may not as a matter of right, file an amended answer. The right to amend after the time for answering has expired, is addressed to the discretion of the court, and the decision thereon is not subject to review, except in case of manifest abuse. Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 222 N.C. 87, 21 S.E.2d 893; Cody v. Hovey, 219 N.C. 369, 5 S.E.2d 165; Osborne v. Canton and Kinsland v. Mackey, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E.2d 265; Biggs v. Moffitt, 218 N.C. 601, 11 S.E.2d 870. Moreover, in the case of Winstead v. Woolard, 223 N.C. 814, 28 S.E.2d 507, Justice Winborne, speaking for the Court, said: ""It is a well settled and long established principle of law in this State that the possession of one tenant in common is in law the possession of all his co-tenants unless and until there has been an actual ouster or a sole adverse possession of twenty years, receiving the rents and profits and claiming the land as his own from which actual ouster would be presumed,"" citing numerous authorities.