Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce

143 S.E. 524, 195 N.C. 717, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 194
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 6, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 524 (Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce) 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
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce, 143 S.E. 524, 195 N.C. 717, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 194 (N.C. 1928).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

¿Without undertaking to state the substance of the complaint, which covers 95 pages of the record and contains more than 290 paragraphs or separate allegations, suffice it to say a careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the demurrers were properly overruled on the alleged ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Furniture Co. v. R. R., ante, 636.

The one circumstance which differentiates this case from those cited by the defendants, especially Emerson v. Gaither, 103 Md., 564, 7 Ann. Cas., 1114, most nearly in point and upon which great reliance is put, is the allegation of a general course of dealing and systematic policy of wrongdoing, concealment and mismanagement, virtually amounting to a conspiracy, in which the defendants are all charged with having-participated at different times and in varying degrees. Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, post, 848, 141 S. E., 339. A connected story is told and a complete picture is painted of a series of transactions, forming one general scheme, and tending to a single end. This saves the pleading from the challenge of the demurrers. Cotton Mills v. Maslin, ante, 12; Bedsole v. Monroe, 40 N. C., 313; Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 224, 50 S. E., 659; Oyster v. Mining Co., 140 N. C., 135, 52 S. E., 198; Hawk v. Lumber Co., 145 N. C., 47, 58 S. E., 603; Chemical Co. v. Floyd, 158 N. C. 455, 74 S. E. 465.

*719 In Young v. Young, 81 N. C., 92, it was held (as stated in the first headnote) : “Where a general right is claimed arising out of a series of transactions tending to one end, the plaintiff may join several causes of action against defendants who have distinct and separate interests, in order to a conclusion of the whole matter in one suit.” And it has been held that in such case the share of each, in causing the total loss, may be separately measured and assessed in one action. Long v. Swindell, 77 N. C., 176.

But under Wall v. Howard, 194 N. C., 310, 139 S. E., 449, and Bane v. Powell, 192 N. C., 387, 135 S. E., 118, the allegations with respect to the wrongful receipt of deposits would seem to be without avail and superfluous in an action by the receiver. On motion, they should be stricken from the complaint. The injured depositors alone may sue for such alleged wrongs. To this extent, the demurrers are valid upon the second ground stated above.

Modified and Affirmed.

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

Related

GULF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Waters
122 S.E.2d 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Orkin Exterminating Company v. O'HANLON
91 S.E.2d 222 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Johnson v. Scarborough
89 S.E.2d 420 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Casey v. Grantham
79 S.E.2d 735 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Erickson v. Starling
64 S.E.2d 832 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Garrett v. . Garrett
46 S.E.2d 302 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Pressley v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
39 S.E.2d 382 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
Bellman v. . Bissette
21 S.E.2d 896 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Wingler v. . Miller
19 S.E.2d 247 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Peitzman v. Town of Zebulon
14 S.E.2d 416 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Griggs v. . Griggs
11 S.E.2d 878 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Holland v. . Whittington
1 S.E.2d 813 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Town of Wllkesboro v. Jordan
193 S.E. 155 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Leach v. . Page
191 S.E. 349 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Barkley v. McClung Realty Co.
191 S.E. 3 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . Richardson
180 S.E. 706 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Fry v. Pomona Mills, Inc.
206 N.C. 768 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Hood, Commissioner of Banks v. . Neal
168 S.E. 202 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Hood ex rel. Bank of Stokes County v. Neal
203 N.C. 864 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Newberry v. Meadows Fertilizer Co.
163 S.E. 116 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
143 S.E. 524, 195 N.C. 717, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-banking-trust-co-v-peirce-nc-1928.