Williams v. . Gooch

173 S.E. 342, 206 N.C. 330, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 174
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 21, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 342 (Williams v. . Gooch) 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
Williams v. . Gooch, 173 S.E. 342, 206 N.C. 330, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 174 (N.C. 1934).

Opinion

Pee CueiaM.

Three separate, distinct and disconnected causes of action are alleged in tbe complaint. It does not appear from tbe complaint that the corporate plaintiff bas any interest in either of these *331 causes of action. Only tbe individual plaintiff would be entitled to recover on either of the causes of action alleged in the complaint.

On the first cause of action which is for the breach of a contract between the individual plaintiff and two of the defendants, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover of these defendants only. Neither of the other defendants is liable to the plaintiff on this cause of action.

On the second cause of action, which is for a tort committed by two of the defendants, the plaintiff could recover of these defendants only. He could not recover of the other defendants on this cause of action.

On the third cause of action, which is for a wrongful and unlawful conspiracy to cheat and defraud the individual plaintiff, in which all the defendants participated, the plaintiff could recover of all the defendants. This is the only cause of action on which all the defendants are liable to the plaintiff.

The demurrer should have been sustained on the ground that there is a misjoinder of causes of action and of parties. See Harrison v. Transit Co., 192 N. C., 545, 135 S. E., 460. The judgment overruling the demurrer must be

Reversed.

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

Related

McEachern v. Miller
151 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
BANNISTER & SONS, INC. v. Williams
135 S.E.2d 572 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
Nye v. Pure Oil Co.
126 S.E.2d 48 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
Davis v. Davis
98 S.E.2d 318 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Holland v. . Whittington
1 S.E.2d 813 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Town of Wllkesboro v. Jordan
193 S.E. 155 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Fertilizer Co v. . Bowen
176 S.E. 565 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Farmville Oil & Fertilizer Co. v. Bowen
176 S.E. 565 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 S.E. 342, 206 N.C. 330, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-gooch-nc-1934.