Alexander v. . Norwood

24 S.E. 119, 118 N.C. 381
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 119 (Alexander v. . Norwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexander v. . Norwood, 24 S.E. 119, 118 N.C. 381 (N.C. 1896).

Opinion

Faircloth, C. J.:

The purpose of The Gode system is to avoid a multiplicity of actions by requiring litigating parties to try and dispose of all questions between them on the same subject matter in one action. Wheie ■an action is instituted and it appears to the court by plea, answer or demurrer that there is another action pending between the same parties and substantially on the same subject matter, and that all the material questions ■ and rights can be determined therein, such action will be dismissed. The plaintiff has no election to litigato_ .in the one or bring another action. Rogers v. Holt, Phil. Eq., 108. And the court will ex mero motu dismiss the second action, as the parties even by consent cannot give the court jurisdiction. Long v. Jarratt, 94 N. C., 443.

In the case before us it appears from the complaint that 'there is another action pending in the same court between the same parties (reversed) in which the right of the administrator to sell lands for assets is the main question, in which "the defendants therein deny the right to sell on the ground *383 that there is sufficient funds already in the hands of the administrator to pay all debts and charges. The complaint in this action refers to the former action, which refeience in effect incorporates the same into this- case. The present action demands that the administrator distribute to plaintiffs their shares of the estate. This involves an account, which can be had in the first action. Where the pendency of the first action appears in the complaint, the question is properly raised by demurrer. If it does not so appear, then the defense must be made by answer. The judgment overruling the demurrer is erroneous.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McDowell v. Blythe Bros. Co.
72 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Cameron v. Cameron
68 S.E.2d 796 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Reece v. Reece
56 S.E.2d 641 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Dwiggins v. Parkway Bus Co.
52 S.E.2d 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Moore v. . Moore
31 S.E.2d 690 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Fletcher Lumber Co. v. Wilson
21 S.E.2d 893 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Johnson v. . Smith
1 S.E.2d 834 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
O'Briant v. H. C. Bennett & Gibson Ice Cream Co.
196 S.E. 336 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Buchanan v. . Feldspar Milling Co.
156 S.E. 140 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Underwood v. . Dooley
147 S.E. 686 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
Marrison v. . Lewis
147 S.E. 729 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
J. A. Jones Construction Co. v. Hamlet Ice Co.
130 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Pinel v. Campsell
157 N.W. 271 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Emry v. . Chappell
62 S.E. 411 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Commissioners of Wilkes County v. Call
44 L.R.A. 252 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Henry v. . Hilliard
27 S.E. 130 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.E. 119, 118 N.C. 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-norwood-nc-1896.