Henredon Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Henredon Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

219 S.E.2d 238, 27 N.C. App. 331, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1836

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1975

Docket7525SC496

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 S.E.2d 238 (Henredon Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henredon Furniture Industries, Inc. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 219 S.E.2d 238, 27 N.C. App. 331, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1836 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

North Carolina case law provides that, although an insurer who has paid part of insured’s claim “has a direct and appreciable interest in the subject matter of the action” brought by-insured against tortfeasor, Burgess v. Trevathan, 236 N.C. 157, 161, 72 S.E. 2d 231, 234 (1952), the insurer is not a necessary party to the action, but only a proper party. New v. Public Service Co., 270 N.C. 137, 153 S.E. 2d 870 (1967) ; University Motors, Inc. v. Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 266 N.C. 251, 146 S.E. 2d 102 (1966) ; Burgess v. Trevathan, supra. The addition of parties where they are not necessary is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and the judge’s order refusing to join additional parties is not ordinarily reviewable. New v. Service Co., supra; Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 107 S.E. 2d 165 (1959) ; Guthrie v. City of Durham, 168 N.C. 573, 84 S.E. 859 (1915). Defendant has not shown how the interlocutory order appealed from deprives it of any “substantial right.” G.S. 1-277. See Funderburk v. Justice, 25 N.C. App. 655, 214 S.E. 2d 310 (1975). Therefore, this appeal is premature and is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

North Carolina case law provides that, although an insurer who has paid part of insured’s claim “has a direct and appreciable interest in the subject matter of the action” brought by-insured against tortfeasor, Burgess v. Trevathan, 236 N.C. 157, 161, 72 S.E. 2d 231, 234 (1952), the insurer is not a necessary party to the action, but only a proper party. New v. Public Service Co., 270 N.C. 137, 153 S.E. 2d 870 (1967) ; University Motors, Inc. v. Durham Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 266 N.C. 251, 146 S.E. 2d 102 (1966) ; Burgess v. Trevathan, supra. The addition of parties where they are not necessary is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and the judge’s order refusing to join additional parties is not ordinarily reviewable. New v. Service Co., supra; Corbett v. Corbett, 249 N.C. 585, 107 S.E. 2d 165 (1959) ; Guthrie v. City of Durham, 168 N.C. 573, 84 S.E. 859 (1915). Defendant has not shown how the interlocutory order appealed from deprives it of any “substantial right.” G.S. 1-277. See Funderburk v. Justice, 25 N.C. App. 655, 214 S.E. 2d 310 (1975). Therefore, this appeal is premature and is dismissed.

Dismissed.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.E.2d 238, 27 N.C. App. 331, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henredon-furniture-industries-inc-v-southern-railway-company-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack