TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Phipps v. Wilson

Julius S. Phipps v. Clinton C. Wilson.

Phipps v. Wilson, 34 S.E. 227 (N.C. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 31, 1899
Judges
Clase
Citations
34 S.E. 227125 N.C. 1061899 N.C. LEXIS 176
Headnotes
Claim, and Delivery — Counterclaim—Damages—Practice. 1. Where claim and delivery are sued out — complaint filed — also answer, denying title of plaintiff, and containing a counterclaim for damages by reason of the unlawful seizure, to which no reply is filed — the question of damages can not be considered until after the issue as to the lawfulness of the seizure is determined. 2. Such counterclaim is inadmissible in this action, as it did not arise out of the same cause of action, and did not exist at the commencement thereof.
Summary
Civil AotioN for the recovery of personal property, heard before Robinson, J., at February Term, 1898, of Guilpobd Superior Court. The plaintiff, by virtue of a mortgage with power of sale from the defendant, claimed to be the owner and entitled to the possession of a water wheel or motor, including all patterns and fixtures for the same. The defendant denied the allegation of ownership, and set upon a counterclaim for damages to his business by reason of the unlawful seizure. There was no reply to the counterclaim. On motion of defendant, his Honor rendered judgment by default and inquiry in favor of defendant upon the counterclaim; from which judgment the plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Clase

*107 Clase, J.

Tbe plaintiff sued out claim and delivery, tbe defendant set up as counterclaim damages accruing from such seizure, wbicb be alleges was wrongful. There being no reply filed, bis Honor gave judgment by default and inquiry in favor of defendant upon tbe counterclaim. Tbis was error while the issue raised by complaint and answer as to lawfulness of tbe seizure was undetermined.

Besides such counterclaim could not be set up in tbis action, for it did not arise out of tbe same cause of action, nor did not exist at tbe commencement of tbe action.

Kramer v. Light Co., 95 N. C., 277 ;

Puffer v. Lucas, 112 N. C., 377 .

Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 21906: 21910: 11928: 11942: 119012026peak 1901 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Finance Corp. v. Lane19 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 1942)
  2. Godwin v. Kennedy145 S.E. 229 (N.C. 1928)
  3. Smith v. French.53 S.E. 435 (N.C. 1906)
  4. Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills.55 S.E. 621 (N.C. 1906)
  5. Griffin v. Thomas.38 S.E. 903 (N.C. 1901)
  6. Satterthwaite v. Ellis.39 S.E. 726 (N.C. 1901)

Most recent

  1. Finance Corp. v. Lane19 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 1942)
  2. Godwin v. Kennedy145 S.E. 229 (N.C. 1928)
  3. White Blakeslee Manufacturing Co. v. Rhodes68 S.E. 141 (N.C. 1910)
  4. Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills.55 S.E. 621 (N.C. 1906)
  5. Smith v. French.53 S.E. 435 (N.C. 1906)
  6. Satterthwaite v. Ellis.39 S.E. 726 (N.C. 1901)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
A. D. Puffer & Sons Mfg. Co. v. Lucas, 112 N.C. 377 (1893) 21
Kramer v. Thomson-Houston Elec. Light Co., 95 N.C. 277 (1886) 20

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list