TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc.

Mrs. Gladys Parker Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc., Central Bank and Trust Company, Standard Mortgage Company, E. E. Reid, Yates Arledge, H. Walter Fuller, and A. O. Greynolds.

Cotten v. Laurel Park Estates, Inc., 141 S.E. 339 (N.C. 1928)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 31, 1928
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
141 S.E. 339195 N.C. 8481928 N.C. LEXIS 219

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The defendants demurred for misjoinder of causes of action and for misjoinder of parties, and appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment overruling tbe demurrer.

The defendants argue, with persuasive but not convincing reasoning, that there is a misjoinder of causes of action and parties. That the complaint is bad for multifariousness; that the complaint contains inconsistent and contradictory causes of action. We cannot so interpret it. Taking the three causes of action, although inartificially set forth, as a whole — not disconnectedly — we think under a liberal construction, “with a view to substantial justice between the parties,” it is one connected story — a common scheme, or plot; practically a conspiracy. Tbe complaint alleges an actionable fraud of the most nefarious kind, connecting all of the defendants and charging, with particularity, all of them with full knowledge and complicity. The causes of action arise out of the same transaction or transaction connected with the same subject of action. All flow from the same source, all are woven together, yoked together, in a scheme, plot or conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff. “If the fountain is tainted, so likewise is the water that flows from it into all the streams.”

Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., at p. 228. On a demurrer, the facts as stated in the complaint are taken as true. Tbe entire matter can be settled by proper issues in one action. C. S., 456;

*849 C. S., 507; C. S., 535;

Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., p. 224;

Robinson v. Williams, 189 N. C., 256 ;

Wadford v. Davis, 192 N. C., 484 ;

Killian v. Hanna, 193 N. C., 17 ;

S. v. McCanless, 193 N. C., 200 . Tbe judgment of the court below is Affirmed'.

How later courts describe this case

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

1928: 31932: 11937: 219282026peak 1928 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barkley v. McClung Realty Co.191 S.E. 3 (N.C. 1937)
  2. Leach v. Page191 S.E. 349 (N.C. 1937)
  3. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce143 S.E. 524 (N.C. 1928)
  4. Jeffreys v. Hocutt142 S.E. 226 (N.C. 1928)
  5. Scales v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.143 S.E. 868 (N.C. 1928)
  6. Hood ex rel. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Love166 S.E. 743 (N.C. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Leach v. Page191 S.E. 349 (N.C. 1937)
  2. Barkley v. McClung Realty Co.191 S.E. 3 (N.C. 1937)
  3. Hood ex rel. Commercial Bank & Trust Co. v. Love166 S.E. 743 (N.C. 1932)
  4. Scales v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.143 S.E. 868 (N.C. 1928)
  5. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Peirce143 S.E. 524 (N.C. 1928)
  6. Jeffreys v. Hocutt142 S.E. 226 (N.C. 1928)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
State v. McCanless, 136 S.E. 371 (N.C. 1927) 20
Robinson v. Williams, 126 S.E. 621 (N.C. 1925) 10
Wadford v. Davis, 135 S.E. 353 (N.C. 1926) 9
Killian v. Hanna, 136 S.E. 246 (N.C. 1927) 5

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