Beam v. . Wright

22 S.E.2d 270, 222 N.C. 174, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 58
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 21, 1942·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Schenck, J.

We are constrained to hold that the judgment of the Superior Court overruling the demurrer was error.

If the defendants Wright did not receive proper credits on the records of the bank for notes to the bank which they signed and delivered, as they allege, their relief would be an action against the bank and not the plaintiff Beam; and if the defendants Wright owed the plaintiff Beam between $700.00 and $800.00 on a note which the Wrights executed to Beam, the bank would have no interest in the amount so due.

The First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, the appealing defendant, is not affected by and has no interest in the cause of action alleged in the complaint for the reason that said bank has no interest in any alleged cause of action between the plaintiff Beam and the defendants Wright.

*176 The plaintiff Beam likewise is not affected by and bas no interest in any cause of action alleged in tbe cross complaint of the defendants Wright against the First Citizens Bank & Trust Company.

The statute, C. S., 507, classifying what causes of action may be united, specifically provides that “the causes of action so united . . . must affect all the parties to the action,” with certain exceptions, in which this action is not included. None of. the causes of action alleged in the complaint or in the cross complaint affect all the parties to this action, and therefore the demurrer thereto should have been sustained. Roberts v. Mfg. Co., 181 N. C., 204, 106 S. E., 664; Bank v. Angelo, 193 N. C., 576, 137 S. E., 705; Shemwell v. Lethco, 198 N. C., 346, 151 S. E., 729; Wingler v. Miller, 221 N. C., 137, 19 S. E. (2d), 247; Finance Corporation v. Lane, 221 N. C., 189, 19 S. E. (2d), 849.

The demurrer should have been sustained and the cross action dismissed, Wingler v. Miller, supra, and cases there cited, and the case is therefore remanded for such action.

Reversed.

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

Beam v. . Wright, 22 S.E.2d 270, 222 N.C. 174, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 58 (N.C. 1942).

22 S.E.2d 270 (Beam v. . Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Durham v. REIDSVILLE ENGINEERING COMPANY
120 S.E.2d 564 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
STANDARD AMUSEMENT COMPANY v. Tarkington
101 S.E.2d 398 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Johnson v. Scarborough
89 S.E.2d 420 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Wrenn v. Graham
74 S.E.2d 232 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Foote v. C. W. Davis & Co.
53 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Fleming v. . Light Co.
50 S.E.2d 45 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
229 N.C. 397 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Horton v. . Perry
49 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Davis v. . Whitehurst
49 S.E.2d 394 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Beam v. . Wright
32 S.E.2d 213 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Moore County v. . Burns
32 S.E.2d 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Southern Mills, Inc. v. Summit Yarn Co.
27 S.E.2d 289 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)