Logan v. . Wallis

76 N.C. 416
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 76 N.C. 416 (Logan v. . Wallis) 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
Logan v. . Wallis, 76 N.C. 416 (N.C. 1877).

Opinion

RodmaN, J.

(After stating the facts as above.) It will . be convenient to consider first the misjoinder of subjects of action because our conclusion upon that may make unnecessary any consideration of the other causes of demurrer.

It must be admitted that the first three causes of action may properly be joined. C. C. P. § 126, (sub sec. 2.) For although Justice might have been sued as a joint contractor with A. D. K. Wallis, the plaintiff might sue the latter alone. C. C. P. § 63. These causes of action are all fcAmded on contract. No cause of action founded on a tort could be joined with these unless the plaintiff could waive the tort and sue on an implied contract.

The fourth cause of action is for the conversion of the plaintiff’ George’s corn. The plaintiff could have sued for the wrongful conversion. But we think he might also waive the tort and sue on the implied contract. The coni was on the land which George demised to A. D. K. Wallis and he was consequently a bailee of it- Without undertaking to state accurately the rule, it -will suffice to say that this cause of action comes within that established by the authorities.

The leading cases on this subject are cited in 1 Chit. Pl. 100-107, and note. Ohitt.y says, “Where the goods of a trader, 'after his act of bankruptcy, are taken in execution or otherwise tortiously disposed of without the concurrence of the assignees, they may waive the tort and declare in as-sumpsit, &c.” “Assumpsit also lies to recover money paid, or goods delivered by a bankrupt by the way of fraudulent *419 preference.” The case of Goldthwaite v. Kempton, 13 N. H. 449, closely resembles ours.

The fifth cause of action is misjoined with the others. It will fee observed that the plaintiff R. W. Logan and the defendants W. 0. "Wallis and Williams are in no wise connected with the first four causes of action. To a complete determination of the matters alleged as the fifth cause of action, they are or may be necessary parties. C. C. P. § 126, says that the causes of action which may be joined must affect all the parties to the action. We concur with the Judge in sustaining the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed with leave to plaintiff to amend his <eomplaint. Case remanded. Let this opinion be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Casey v. Grantham
79 S.E.2d 735 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Fleming v. . Light Co.
50 S.E.2d 45 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Fleming v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
229 N.C. 397 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Horton v. . Perry
49 S.E.2d 734 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Lardner v. Cook
103 P.2d 849 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1940)
Fry v. Pomona Mills, Inc.
206 N.C. 768 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Craven County v. . Investment Co.
160 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Hawk v. . Lumber Co.
58 S.E. 603 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Hawk v. Pine Lumber Co.
58 S.E. 603 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Williams v. Carolina & Western Railroad
57 S.E. 216 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Fisher v. . Trust Co.
50 S.E. 659 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Gattis v. . Kilgo
34 S.E. 246 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
State Ex Rel. Cromartie v. Parker
28 S.E. 297 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Benton v. . Collins
24 S.E. 122 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Hodges v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad
10 S.E. 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Street v. . Tuck
84 N.C. 605 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Doughty v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad
78 N.C. 22 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 N.C. 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/logan-v-wallis-nc-1877.