Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc.

141 S.E. 339, 195 N.C. 848, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 219
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 31, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 339 (Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc.) 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
Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc., 141 S.E. 339, 195 N.C. 848, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 219 (N.C. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendants demurred for misjoinder of causes of action and for misjoinder of parties, and appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment overruling tbe demurrer.

The defendants argue, with persuasive but not convincing reasoning, that there is a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. That the complaint is bad for multifariousness; that the complaint contains inconsistent and contradictory causes of action. We cannot so interpret it. Taking the three causes of action, although inartificially set forth, as a whole — not disconnectedly — we think under a liberal construction, “with a view to substantial justice between the parties,” it is one connected story — a common scheme, or plot; practically a conspiracy. Tbe complaint alleges an actionable fraud of the most nefarious kind, connecting all of the defendants and charging, with particularity, all of them with full knowledge and complicity. The causes of action arise out of the same transaction or transaction connected with the same subject of action. All flow from the same source, all are woven together, yoked together, in a scheme, plot or conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff. “If the fountain is tainted, so likewise is the water that flows from it into all the streams.” Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., at p. 228. On a demurrer, the facts as stated in the complaint are taken as true. Tbe entire matter can be settled by proper issues in one action. C. S., 456; *849 C. S., 507; C. S., 535; Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., p. 224; Robinson v. Williams, 189 N. C., 256; Wadford v. Davis, 192 N. C., 484; Killian v. Hanna, 193 N. C., 17; S. v. McCanless, 193 N. C., 200. Tbe judgment of the court below is

Affirmed'.

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

Related

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 Ex Rel. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Love
166 S.E. 743 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
Scales v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
143 S.E. 868 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce
143 S.E. 524 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Jeffreys v. . Hocutt
142 S.E. 226 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 S.E. 339, 195 N.C. 848, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cotten-v-laurel-park-estates-inc-nc-1928.