Alexander v. Norwood

Maggie Alexander v. James Norwood, Administrator of A. Pratt

Alexander v. Norwood, 24 S.E. 119 (N.C. 1896)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: February 5, 1896
Judges: Faircloth
Citations: 24 S.E. 119118 N.C. 381

Headnotes

Practice — Pendency of Another Action — Abatement. 1. Where an action is instituted and it appears to the court by-plea, answer or demurrer that there is another action pending- between the same parties and substantially on the same subject matter, and that all the material allegations and rights can be determined therein, such action will be dismissed. 2. In such case the plaintiff has no election to, litigate in the one or to bring another action, and the parties cannot, even by consent, give the court jurisdiction. 3. Where the pendency of such other action appears in the complaint, advantage must be taken of it by demurrer — otherwise, by answer-

Summary

PROCEEDING, begun by petition, before the Clerk of the ■■Superior Court of Orange County, by the heirs and next -of kin of Alexander Pratt, deceased, against the defendant, his administrator, for the purpose of having the defend- ■ ant increase his bond and to render an account and distribute the funds of the estate, heard by Starlmok, Jat Pali Term, 1895, of OkaNGE Superior Court, on appeal from "the judgment of the Clerk sustaining the demurrer of ■defendant. His Honor overruled the Clerk’s judgment and defendant appealed. The pertinent facts appear in the opinion of Chief Justice Faircloth.

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

Opinion of the Court — Faircloth

Faircloth, C. J.:

The purpose of The Gode system is to avoid a multiplicity of actions by requiring litigating parties to try and dispose of all questions between them on the same subject matter in one action. Wheie ■an action is instituted and it appears to the court by plea, answer or demurrer that there is another action pending between the same parties and substantially on the same subject matter, and that all the material questions ■ and rights can be determined therein, such action will be dismissed. The plaintiff has no election to litigato_ .in the one or bring another action.

Rogers v. Holt, Phil. Eq., 108. And the court will ex mero motu dismiss the second action, as the parties even by consent cannot give the court jurisdiction.

Long v. Jarratt, 94 N. C., 443 .

In the case before us it appears from the complaint that 'there is another action pending in the same court between the same parties (reversed) in which the right of the administrator to sell lands for assets is the main question, in which "the defendants therein deny the right to sell on the ground *383 that there is sufficient funds already in the hands of the administrator to pay all debts and charges. The complaint in this action refers to the former action, which refeience in effect incorporates the same into this- case. The present action demands that the administrator distribute to plaintiffs their shares of the estate. This involves an account, which can be had in the first action. Where the pendency of the first action appears in the complaint, the question is properly raised by demurrer. If it does not so appear, then the defense must be made by answer. The judgment overruling the demurrer is erroneous.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts16

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dwiggins v. Parkway Bus Co.52 S.E.2d 892 (N.C. 1949)
Cameron v. Cameron68 S.E.2d 796 (N.C. 1952)
McDowell v. Blythe Bros. Co.72 S.E.2d 860 (N.C. 1952)
Moore v. Moore31 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. 1944)
Marrison v. Lewis147 S.E. 729 (N.C. 1929)
Pinel v. Campsell157 N.W. 271 (Mich. 1916)

Most recent

McDowell v. Blythe Bros. Co.72 S.E.2d 860 (N.C. 1952)
Cameron v. Cameron68 S.E.2d 796 (N.C. 1952)
Reece v. Reece56 S.E.2d 641 (N.C. 1949)
Dwiggins v. Parkway Bus Co.52 S.E.2d 892 (N.C. 1949)
Moore v. Moore31 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. 1944)
Fletcher Lumber Co. v. Wilson21 S.E.2d 893 (N.C. 1942)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Long v. Jarratt, 94 N.C. 443 (1886)	20

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list