Vaughan v. . Moseley

72 S.E. 842, 157 N.C. 156, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 24
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 22, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 842 (Vaughan v. . Moseley) 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
Vaughan v. . Moseley, 72 S.E. 842, 157 N.C. 156, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 24 (N.C. 1911).

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

In 1909 the defendant' entered into a contract with Moseley Brothers to deliver to them 100 bales of merchantable cotton at the warehouse-in Pactolus under the terms of the contract which is set out in the record. Thereafter *157 Moseley Brothers transferred and assigned the contract to Yanghan & Barnes. This action is brought by them .jointly to recover damages by reason of the failure of the defendant to comply with this contract.

The plaintiffs put in evidence a letter from Vaughan & Barnes, dated 22 November, 1909, in which they notified the defendant that they had sold said cotton to Messrs. Hogan & Co., cotton buyers and exporters, and added: “We want to know by return mail what you propose to do in order that we may be able to tell the buyer here when he may expect delivery of this 100 bales of cotton in question.” There was no evidence offered to show that the cotton had been resold to the plaintiffs.

The motion of the defendant for nonsuit should have been granted on the ground that “the evidence disclosed that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the claim sued on.” Chapman v. McLawhorn, 150 N. C., 166, and numerous cases there cited. Revisal, 400, is explicit: “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” The plaintiff’s evidence showed that the right to demand this cotton or damages for its nondelivery had passed to Hogan & Go. by their assignment prior to the date when it was deliverable. The plaintiffs are neither legal nor equitable owners of the contract, nor are they trustees of an express trust.

They have “sawed the limb off between themselves and the tree.”

Action dismissed.

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

Related

Morton v. Thornton
125 S.E.2d 464 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Darden v. Boyette
100 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Lipe v. Guilford National Bank
72 S.E.2d 759 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Threadgill v. . Faust
195 S.E. 798 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Green
157 S.E. 797 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 S.E. 842, 157 N.C. 156, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-moseley-nc-1911.