Thigpen v. Kinston Cotton Mills

65 S.E. 750, 151 N.C. 97, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 203
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 6, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 750 (Thigpen v. Kinston Cotton Mills) 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
Thigpen v. Kinston Cotton Mills, 65 S.E. 750, 151 N.C. 97, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 203 (N.C. 1909).

Opinion

Brown, J.

This is a suit brought by Roland Thigpen, an infant, and by Albert Thigpen, individually, against the Kinston Cotton Mills and the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation (Limited), of London, England, for' injuries received by the plaintiff, Eoland Thigpen, while at work in the cotton mills of the Kinston Cotton Mills.

1. The son sues to recover damages for a personal injury received while working in the cotton mills, alleged to .be due to negligence of the employer. The father is joined in same action and sues to recover of the employer for the loss of his son’s services.

One of the grounds of demurrer is the misjoinder of parties and causes of action.

We think the demurrer was properly sustained and the action dismissed. The son has no interest in the cause of action of the father, and the father has no interest in the cause of action of the son. It is a manifest misjoinder, both of parties and causes of action, and therefore the action cannot be divided. Revisal, *98 sec. 469. Cromartie v. Parker, 121 N. C., 198; Morton v. Telegraph Co., 130 N. C., 302; Edgerton v. Powell, 72 N. C., 64.

2. Another ground of demurrer is that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation.

The question raised by the demurrer has never been decided by this Court; and as the action is dismissed it is unnecessary to decide it now. The judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

Price v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.
161 S.E.2d 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Kleibor v. Rogers
144 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
Diamond Brand Canvas Products Co. v. Christy
138 S.E.2d 218 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
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)
Teague v. Siler City Oil Co.
59 S.E.2d 2 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Smith v. Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank
196 S.E. 481 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Greene v. . Jones
179 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Sasser v. . Bullard
155 S.E. 248 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
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)
Rogers v. . Rogers
133 S.E. 184 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Bickley Clothing Co. v. Green
122 S.E. 847 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Brock & Scott Produce Co. v. Brock
118 S.E. 798 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Shore v. . Holt
117 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Rose v. Fremont Warehouse & Improvement Co.
108 S.E. 389 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Roberts v. Utility Manufacturing Co.
106 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Ingram v. . Corbit
99 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Campbell v. Washington Light & Power Co.
82 S.E. 842 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Cooper v. Southern Express Co.
81 S.E. 743 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.E. 750, 151 N.C. 97, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thigpen-v-kinston-cotton-mills-nc-1909.