Walker v. . Loyall

187 S.E. 565, 210 N.C. 466, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 131
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 23, 1936·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The judgment of the Superior Court must be affirmed on authority of Bargeon v. Transportation Co., 196 N. C., 776, 147 S. E., 299, which is controlling upon the facts presently appearing of record. The two cases are not distinguishable by reason of the amendment to C. S., 618, enacted 27 February, 1929, permitting contribution between joint tort-feasors, because the allegation of the defendant administrator is one of sole liability on the part of the receivers, if any liability at all, and not one of joint tort-feasorship. Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N. C., 517, 142 S. E., 761.

Nothing can be added to what was said in the Bargeon case, supra, where the late Justice Brogden, with his usual clarity and conciseness, covers the whole matter. The decision is directly in point and is decisive of the present appeal.

Affirmed.

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

Walker v. . Loyall, 187 S.E. 565, 210 N.C. 466, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 131 (N.C. 1936).

187 S.E. 565 (Walker v. . Loyall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards v. Hamill
138 S.E.2d 151 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Potter v. Frosty Morn Meats, Inc.
86 S.E.2d 780 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Read v. Young Roofing Co.
66 S.E.2d 821 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Smith v. . Kappas
12 S.E.2d 693 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Kappas
218 N.C. 758 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Perry v. . Sykes
200 S.E. 923 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)