Beam v. . Wright

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Beam v. . Wright

22 S.E.2d 270, 222 N.C. 174, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 58

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 21, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 22 S.E.2d 270 (Beam v. . Wright) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 S.E.2d 270, 222 N.C. 174, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beam-v-wright-nc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack