Roberts v. Utility Manufacturing Co.

106 S.E. 664, 181 N.C. 204, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 42
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 6, 1921
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 664 (Roberts v. Utility Manufacturing Co.) 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
Roberts v. Utility Manufacturing Co., 106 S.E. 664, 181 N.C. 204, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 42 (N.C. 1921).

Opinion

AlleN, J.

The causes of action that may be joined are classified im section 507 of the Consolidated Statutes, which concludes: “Rut the-causes of action' so united must all belong to one of these classes, and except in actions for the foreclosure of mortgages, must affect all the-parties to the action.”

It is also well settled that an action cannot be divided under section 516 when there is a misjoinder both of parties and of causes of action, and that in such case the demurrer must be sustained and the action dismissed. Cromartie v. Parker, 121 N. C., 198; Morton v. Tel. Co., 130 N. C., 299; Thigpen v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 97; Campbell v. Power Co., 166 N. C., 488.

Applying these principles it is clear that the demurrer ought to have-been sustained.

There are two plaintiffs, Owen IT. Roberts and D. B. Roberts, and there are at least three causes of action set out, all of which do not affect all of the parties to the action, as required by the statute.

The plaintiffs allege, first, a breach of- a contract made by the defendant with O. H. Roberts, and assigned by him to the other plaintiff,. D. B. Roberts. Next, a breach of a separate and distinct contract made by the defendant with both of the plaintiffs, and in the third place, a breach of a contract made by the defendant with the plaintiff, O. EL, Roberts.

Reversed.

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

Related

Morton v. Thornton
131 S.E.2d 378 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Gaines v. Atlas Plywood Corp.
116 S.E.2d 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Tart v. Byrne
90 S.E.2d 692 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Casey v. Grantham
79 S.E.2d 735 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Lillian Knitting Mills Co. v. Earle
62 S.E.2d 492 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Snotherly v. Jenrette
61 S.E.2d 708 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Teague v. Siler City Oil Co.
59 S.E.2d 2 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Moore County v. . Burns
32 S.E.2d 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Schnepp v. . Richardson
22 S.E.2d 555 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Beam v. . Wright
22 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Burleson v. . Burleson
7 S.E.2d 706 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Holland v. . Whittington
1 S.E.2d 813 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Smith v. Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank
196 S.E. 481 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Town of Wllkesboro v. Jordan
193 S.E. 155 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Atkins v. . Steed
179 S.E. 889 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Lucas v. North Carolina Bank & Trust Co.
174 S.E. 301 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Sasser v. . Bullard
155 S.E. 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Star Furniture Co. v. Carolina & Northwestern Railway Co.
143 S.E. 242 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Citizens National Bank v. Angelo Bros.
137 S.E. 705 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Killian v. . Hanna
136 S.E. 246 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 S.E. 664, 181 N.C. 204, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-utility-manufacturing-co-nc-1921.