Claywell v. Sudderth
| Decision Date | 30 June 1877 |
| Citation | 77 N.C. 287 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES A. CLAYWELL, Administrator, v. W. S. SUDDERTH, Executor. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from an Order of the Clerk of BURKE Superior Court, heard at Chambers on the 1st day of June, 1877, before Furches, J.
The defendant's counsel moved to dismiss this action upon the ground that there was a similar proceeding pending in Caldwell Superior Court, between the same parties, involving the same subject matter, and in which various orders of reference, reports, and decrees have been made. This motion was overruled by the Clerk, and the defendant required to render an account, &c. Thereupon the defendant appealed to the Judge of the District who reversed the decision of the Clerk, allowed the motion of the defendant and dismissed the action. From which judgment the plaintiff appealed.
Messrs. J. M. McCorkle and A. W. Haywood, for plaintiff .
Mr. A. C. Avery, for defendant .
The pendency of the action between the same parties for the same cause in another County, and in another Court having jurisdiction, is a good defence to this action, as it avoids multiplicity of suits.
There is no error. This will be certified.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDowell v. Blythe Bros. Co.
...94 N.C. 443; Redfearn v. Austin, 88 N.C. 413; Smith v. Moore, 79 N.C. 82; State v. Atlantic & N. C. R. R. Co., 77 N.C. 299; Claywell v. Sudderth, 77 N.C. 287; Sloan v. McDowell, 75 N.C. 29; Woody v. Jordan, 69 N.C. 189; Harris v. Johnson, 65 N.C. 478; Casey v. Harrison, 13 N.C. 244. The law......
-
Cameron v. Cameron
...52 L.R.A., N.S., 79; McNeill v. Currie, 117 N.C. 341, 23 S.E. 216; Long v. Jarratt, 94 N.C. 443; Smith v. Moore, 79 N.C. 82; Claywell v. Sudderth, 77 N.C. 287; Harris v. Johnson, 65 N.C. 478. It is immaterial that the parties, plaintiff and defendant, are reversed in the two actions. Brothe......
-
Mcneill v. Currie
...The court below therefore properly held that this action subsequently begun for the same purpose could not be maintained (Claywell v. Sudderth, 77 N. C. 287; Woody v. Jordan, 69 N. C. 189); and, if it cannot be maintained to ascertain the extent of the liability of the surety, it cannot be ......
-
State v. The Atl. & North Carolina R.R. Co.
...matter is not in dispute, and only the question of costs remains. ( Childs v Martin, 69 N. C. 126; Martin v. Sloan, Ibid. 128; Claywell v. Sudderth, 77 N.C. 287, cited and approved.) MOTION to vacate an Order appointing a Receiver, and for an Injunction, heard at Chambers in Greensboro, on ......