Bunker v. . Llewellyn

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bunker v. . Llewellyn

18 S.E.2d 717, 221 N.C. 1, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 369

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 25, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 S.E.2d 717 (Bunker v. . Llewellyn) 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

Bunker v. . Llewellyn, 18 S.E.2d 717, 221 N.C. 1, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 369 (N.C. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNBOENE, J.

In view of the fact that the demurrer is overruled on the ground that the complaint states a cause of action in equitable contribution, it may well be contended that in so far as the rulings adverse to plaintiffs are concerned this appeal is premature. But, be that as it may, a review of the rulings to which plaintiffs object fails to disclose error in the judgment rendered. (1) Whatever the agreement may have been between plaintiffs and the bank, on which plaintiffs undertake to state a cause of action, there is no allegation that the defendants, appellees, were parties thereto. (2) The allegation that plaintiffs satisfied the bank and took up the note under express agreement with it that “their taking up” the note was not to constitute.a payment and satisfaction of it, but that they were to “have the rights of the bank to collect from the other signers and makers,” may fairly raise the question as to whether the plaintiffs are the real parties in interest. The ruling that plaintiffs are the real parties in interest must be read in connection with ruling that the complaint states a cause of action for equitable contribution. But if plaintiffs be the owners of the note, the allegations are tantamount to saying that plaintiffs paid the bank and took up the note. *4 If so, plaintiffs and defendants being coprincipals and all equally liable on the note, such payment constitutes extinguishment of the note. Sherwood v. Collier, 14 N. C., 380; Brown v. Long, 36 N. C., 190; Runyon v. Clark, 49 N. C., 52; Hanner v. Douglass, 57 N. C., 262; Davison v. Gregory, 132 N. C., 389, 43 S. E., 916; Banh v. Hotel Co., 147 N. C., 594, 61 S. E., 570; Liverman v. Cahoon, 156 N. C., 187, 72 S. E., 327; Hoft v. Mohn, 215 N. C., 397, 2 S. E. (2d), 23. In such event their remedy against the defendants, their coprincipals, would be in equitable contribution. Moore v. Moore, 11 N. C., 358; Powell v. Matthis, 26 N. C., 83; Allen v. Wood, 38 N. C., 386; Adams v. Hayes, 120 N. C., 383, 27 S. E., 47; Petree v. Savage, 171 N. C., 437, 88 S. E., 725; Harvey v. Oettinger, 194 N. C., 483, 140 S. E., 86. Subrogation would not lie. Liles v. Rogers, 113 N. C., 197, 18 S. E., 104; Joyner v. Reflector Co., 176 N. C., 274, 97 S. E., 44; Wallace v. Benner, 200 N. C., 124, 156 S. E., 795.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

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

WiNBOENE, J.

In view of the fact that the demurrer is overruled on the ground that the complaint states a cause of action in equitable contribution, it may well be contended that in so far as the rulings adverse to plaintiffs are concerned this appeal is premature. But, be that as it may, a review of the rulings to which plaintiffs object fails to disclose error in the judgment rendered. (1) Whatever the agreement may have been between plaintiffs and the bank, on which plaintiffs undertake to state a cause of action, there is no allegation that the defendants, appellees, were parties thereto. (2) The allegation that plaintiffs satisfied the bank and took up the note under express agreement with it that “their taking up” the note was not to constitute.a payment and satisfaction of it, but that they were to “have the rights of the bank to collect from the other signers and makers,” may fairly raise the question as to whether the plaintiffs are the real parties in interest. The ruling that plaintiffs are the real parties in interest must be read in connection with ruling that the complaint states a cause of action for equitable contribution. But if plaintiffs be the owners of the note, the allegations are tantamount to saying that plaintiffs paid the bank and took up the note. *4 If so, plaintiffs and defendants being coprincipals and all equally liable on the note, such payment constitutes extinguishment of the note. Sherwood v. Collier, 14 N. C., 380; Brown v. Long, 36 N. C., 190; Runyon v. Clark, 49 N. C., 52; Hanner v. Douglass, 57 N. C., 262; Davison v. Gregory, 132 N. C., 389, 43 S. E., 916; Banh v. Hotel Co., 147 N. C., 594, 61 S. E., 570; Liverman v. Cahoon, 156 N. C., 187, 72 S. E., 327; Hoft v. Mohn, 215 N. C., 397, 2 S. E. (2d), 23. In such event their remedy against the defendants, their coprincipals, would be in equitable contribution. Moore v. Moore, 11 N. C., 358; Powell v. Matthis, 26 N. C., 83; Allen v. Wood, 38 N. C., 386; Adams v. Hayes, 120 N. C., 383, 27 S. E., 47; Petree v. Savage, 171 N. C., 437, 88 S. E., 725; Harvey v. Oettinger, 194 N. C., 483, 140 S. E., 86. Subrogation would not lie. Liles v. Rogers, 113 N. C., 197, 18 S. E., 104; Joyner v. Reflector Co., 176 N. C., 274, 97 S. E., 44; Wallace v. Benner, 200 N. C., 124, 156 S. E., 795.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.E.2d 717, 221 N.C. 1, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunker-v-llewellyn-nc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack