Gillikin v. Springle
| Decision Date | 08 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 95,95 |
| Citation | 254 N.C. 240,118 S.E.2d 611 |
| Parties | C. T. GILLIKIN, Administrator of Louie Elmer Gillikin, Deceased, and Next of Kin to Louie Elmer Gillikin, Deceased, v. Leslie D. SPRINGLE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., New Bern, for plaintiff-appellant.
Claud R. Wheatly, Jr., and Thomas S. Bennett, Beaufort, for defendant-appellee.
When it affirmatively appears from the complaint that plaintiff has no right of action, this Court is not required to await a formal demurrer. It may, ex mero motu, dismiss the action. Skinner v. Empresa Transformadora, 252 N.C. 320, 113 S.E.2d 717. If there is a mere defect in the attempted statement of the cause of action, plaintiff should be permitted to amend.
The rule which is applied here may be used by the Superior Court, particularly when, as here, there is a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Speas v. Ford, 253 N.C. 770, 117 S.E.2d 784.
Giving the pleadings the liberal construction commanded by the statute, G.S. § 1-151, it appears plaintiff asserts tortious conduct by defendant to plaintiff's detriment by (1) initiating a conspiracy to suborn perjured testimony in an action to which plaintiff was a party, (2) fraud perpetrated by defendant on plaintiff by the perjured testimony, thereby preventing plaintiff from recovering for the wrongful death of his intestate, (3) defamation of plaintiff's intestate by asserting intestate was drunk and nude when he drove the automobile and by exhibiting derogatory pictures of intestate, (4) prostitution of the office of coroner to defendant's personal advantage.
Plaintiff's brief does little to enlighten us which allegation entitles him to compensatory or punitive damages as claimed. He contents himself with the statement: 'This (the asserted conspiracy) reveal a rotten situation for which there should be some remedy and redress in the courts * * * There was never a full and complete adjudication in the original suit for the same was tainted with fraud due to the scheming and connivance of the Coroner in his individual and official capacity.
Manifestly a judge is not compelled to inform a litigant of the reason which leads him to make a ruling, but the appeal does compel us to examine the record to see if there is in fact error in the judgment. The brief seems to say plaintiff is entitled to recover because of (a) the asserted conspiracy to procure perjured testimony, or (b) the fraud resulting from the perjured testimony preventing his recovering damages for wrongful death.
Perjured testimony and the subornation of perjured testimony are criminal offenses, G.S. §§ 14-209, 14-210, but neither are torts supporting a civil action for damages. The right to recover based on perjury has recently been considered by us and denied. Brewer v. Carolina Coach Co., 253 N.C. 257, 116 S.E.2d 725. Nothing need be added to what was there said.
Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Herbie's Place
...and convicted or he has passed beyond the jurisdiction of courts and is not amenable to criminal process." Gillikin v. Springle, 254 N.C. 240, 244, 118 S.E.2d 611, 614 (1961) (citing Horne, 215 N.C. 622, 3 S.E.2d 1, and McCoy, 199 N.C. 602, 155 S.E. 452). The rationale is that "[i]f perjury......
-
Henry v. Deen
...a civil action for perjury, or subornation of perjury. The Court of Appeals relied upon this Court's opinions in Gilliken v. Springle, 254 N.C. 240, 118 S.E.2d 611 (1961) and Gilliken v. Bell, 254 N.C. 244, 118 S.E.2d 609 (1961) for the rule that civil actions for perjury or subornation of ......
-
Sutton v. Duke
...that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant. Bagwell v. Brevard, 256 N.C. 465, 124 S.E.2d 129; Gillikin v. Springle, 254 N.C. 240, 118 S.E.2d 611; Turner v. Gastonia City Board of Education, 250 N.C. 456, 109 S.E.2d 211. If the complaint disclosed 'a defective cause of a......
-
Weathers v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill
...for a civil action." Gilmore v. Gilmore, No. COA12-1426, 2013 WL 4714331 (N.C. App. Sept. 3, 2013); see also Gillikin v. Springle, 254 N.C. 240, 243, 118 S.E.2d 611, 614 (1961) ("Perjured testimony and the subornation of perjured testimony are criminal offenses, but neither are torts suppor......