Dailey v. Southern Lime & Fertilizer Works

80 S.E. 891, 165 N.C. 60, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 217

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 18, 1914
• Status: Published

Opinion

AlleN, J.

This action is for the appointment of a receiver of the defendant corporation, to the end that its assets may be collected and administered, and the statute (Revisal, sec. 410) provides that any person may be made a defendant “who has or claims an interest in the controversy advérselo the plaintiff, or who is a necessary party to the complete determination or settlement of the questions involved therein.”

Accepting tbe allegations of tbe complaint to be true, and applying tbe test prescribed by tbe statute, it not only appears tbat tbe defendant Pritchard bas no interest in tbe assets of tbe corporation, but tbat be claims none, and tbat, tbe corporation bas incurred no liability .to bim; and it is expressly alleged tbat bis demand against tbe plaintiff is spurious, and tbat tbe plaintiff owes bim nothing.

There is therefore no cause of action stated against bim, and tbe complaint negatives tbe idea tbat be bas a cause of-action against tbe plaintiff.

Tbe principle involved in Spruill v. Bank, 163 N. C., 43, is closely related to tbe one under consideration. In tbat case tbe plaintiff brought bis action against tbe bank and its cashier for wronglully paying a check to one Jackson, who was also made a party defendant, upon tbe theory tbat if there was a recovery against tbe bank it could recover against Jackson.

Tbe plaintiff alleged no cause of action against Jackson, and tbe bank and Latham denied tbat they bad wrongfully paid tbe check to bim, and it was held tbat tbe action was properly dismissed as to Jackson.

"We therefore conclude there is no error.

Affirmed.