Gibbs v. Heavlin, 7425DC526
| Citation | 22 N.C.App. 482,206 S.E.2d 814 |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7425DC526,7425DC526 |
| Parties | Robert H. GIBBS and wife Elsie C. Gibbs v. Kenneth C. HEAVLIN and wife Helen L. Heavlin. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Finger & Greene by C. Banks Finger, Boone, for plaintiffs appellees.
Louis H. Smith, Boone, for defendant appellant.
Defendant's first contention is that the court erred in not granting his motion to dismiss the claims 'for lack of jurisdiction of subject matter and misjoinder of causes of action under Rules 16 and 12 and on basis of NCGS 1--75.3 and 1--75.5.' He argues that any agreement regarding the house and lot in Blowing Rock was made in Florida; that the house referred to in the second claim alleged was located in Florida; therefore, the North Carolina courts have no jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged contracts and seek the recovery of monetary judgments, therefore, they are transitory and not local. In Brady v. Brady, 161 N.C. 324, 326, 77 S.E. 235, 236 (1913), we find: See also, Howle v. Express, Inc., 237 N.C. 667, 75 S.E.2d 732 (1953) and Bunting v. Henderson, 220 N.C. 194, 16 S.E.2d 836 (1941). Defendants were personally served with process in this State. We hold that the trial court had jurisdiction.
With respect to the joinder of claims, G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 18, clearly provides that a party asserting a claim for relief may join as many claims, legal or equitable, as he has against an opposing party. We hold that there was no improper joinder of claims in the case at bar.
Defendant's other contention is that the court erred in denying his motions to dismiss pursuant to G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 41, for that the plaintiffs showed no right to relief. We reject this contention.
A motion to dismiss under G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 41(b), does not raise the question of whether the particular findings made by the court are supported by the evidence, but only the question of whether any findings could be made from the evidence which would support a recovery. Pegram-West, Inc. v. Homes, Inc., 12 N.C.App. 519, 184 S.E.2d 65 (1971)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dealers Specialties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 143A81
...1A-1, Rule 41(b) raises the question of whether any findings could be made from the evidence to support a recovery. Gibbs v. Heavlin, 22 N.C.App. 482, 206 S.E.2d 814 (1974); 11 Strong's N.C. Index 3d, Rules of Civil Procedure § 41. In ruling on the motion the evidence must be viewed in the ......
-
Balcon, Inc. v. Sadler
...jurisdiction over actions transitory in nature. Clearly, the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter. Gibbs v. Heavlin, 22 N.C.App. 482, 206 S.E.2d 814 (1974). But the trial court could not exercise its subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case if it did not have juris......
-
Sanders v. Walker
...1A-1, Rule 41(b) raises the question of whether any findings could be made from the evidence to support a recovery. Gibbs v. Heavlin, 22 N.C.App. 482, 206 S.E.2d 814 (1974); 11 Strong's N.C. Index 3d, Rules of Civil Procedure § 41. In ruling on the motion the evidence must be viewed in the ......
-
United Leasing Corp. v. Miller
...competent evidence even though there may be evidence to support findings to the contrary. Bryant v. Kelly, supra; Gibbs v. Heavlin, 22 N.C.App. 482, 206 S.E.2d 814 (1974). In the case under discussion the trial judge made the following findings of fact relative to plaintiff's acts of "9. On......