Bean v. Home Detective Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1934
• Docket Number: 498.
• Citation: 173 S.E. 5,206 N.C. 125
• Parties: BEAN v. HOME DETECTIVE CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

173 S.E. 5

206 N.C. 125

BEAN v. HOME DETECTIVE CO. et al.

No. 498.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 28, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Sink, Judge.

Action by James W. Bean against the Home Detective Company and others. From an order sustaining demurrer to plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Civil action for alleged fraud and deceit.

The complaint alleges:

(1) That plaintiff was employed by the defendant company through its agents, the individual defendants, in September, 1929, to aid in promoting its business in High Point, assuring the plaintiff that the work was entirely legitimate and lawful.

(2) That the operations of the defendant were unlawful and fraudulent, in that it was promoting thefts and robberies and ostensibly recovering the stolen goods as a means of creating business and enhancing its reputation as a private detective agency.

(3) That on or about November 4, 1929, upon instructions from the defendant and in the course of his employment, the plaintiff received certain hosiery from a party who had stolen the same from the Royal Hosiery Mill; that the stolen hosiery was turned over to the defendant; and that in consequence of such activities on the part of the plaintiff, he was indicted and convicted at the September term, 1931, Guilford superior court, of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been feloniously taken or stolen, and sentenced to six months on the roads.

(4) That plaintiff has been greatly damaged in the sum of $10,000.

Demurrer interposed on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; sustained exception; appeal.

Civil courts will not assist one party against another when they are in pari delicto.

Plaintiff had no cause of action against employer for six months' sentence on the roads for receipt of stolen goods in course of employment, alleged to be in promotion of theft and recovery of goods to enhance employer's reputation as detective agency, since parties were in pari delicto.

Garland B. Daniel, of High Point, Younce & Younce, of Greensboro, and Brawley & Gantt, of Durham, for appellant.

Allen Adams, of Greensboro, for appellees.

STACY Chief Justice.

The allegations of the complaint are discreditable to both parties. They blacken the character of the plaintiff as well as soil the reputation of the defendant. As between them, the law...