The opinion
Per Curiam.
It very rarely happens that the making of additional parties proves prejudicial, and hence orders making such parties are discretionary with the trial court, and are not reviewable upon appeal.
Tillery v. Candler,
118 N. C., 888 ;
Bernard v. Shemwell,
139 N. C., 446 ;
Maggett v. Roberts,
108 N. C., 174 . By proper amendment new parties may be brought into a pending action.
Dobson v. Southern Ry. Co.,
129 N. C., 289 .
A judge of the Superior Court has within his sound discretion the statutory authority to permit the plaintiff to amend his complaint when thereby the ground for the alleged cause is not so substantially changed as to become a new or different cause of action.
Goins v. Sargent,
196 N. C., 478 ; C. S., 547.
The appellant takes the position in its brief that should the additional party be made, and should the complaint be amended as allowed by his Honor’s order, no cause of action would then be alleged against it. However this may be, the proper way in which to present that question is by demurrer to the complaint when amended, and not by exception to the order allowing such amendment.
The appeal is premature, and therefore is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.