Hamlin v. Tucker
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 72 N.C. 502 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBT. HAMLIN v. JOHN H. TUCKER. |
A plaintiff may in the same complaint join as separate causes of action, (1.) the harboring and maintaining his wife; (2.) the conversion of certain personal property, to which the plaintiff is entitled jure mariti; (3.) inducing the wife, while harbored and maintained, to execute to defendant a deed for land, under which he had received the rents; and (4.) converting to defendant's own use, certain mules, farming utensils, &c., set out in a marriage settlement executed by plaintiff and his wife.
CIVIL ACTION tried before Hilliard, J., at Fall Term 1874, of BERTIE Superior Court.
The defendant demurred to the complaint of the plaintiff, for the misjoinder of several causes of action.
His Honor on motion of the plaintiff overruled the demurer, and the defendant appealed.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the case are stated in the opinion of the CHIEF JUSTICE.
D. C. Winston and Smith & Strong, for appellant .
P. H. Winston, Jr., contra .
There is no error in the ruling of his Honor, by which the demurrer was overruled.
The demurrer is put on the ground of a misjoinder of actions, in this: The complaint sets out in the first instance a cause of action for “harboring and maintaining the wife of the plaintiff.”
In the second instance, a cause of action for converting certain personal property, not embraced by the marriage settlement to which the plaintiff was entitled jure mariti.
In the third instance, a cause of action for inducing the wife of plaintiff, while harbored and maintained, to execute to the defendant, a deed for land, under which he had received the rents.
In the fourth instance, a cause of action, for converting to his own use certain mules, farming utensils, &c., set out in a marriage settlement, executed by the plaintiff and his wife.
In our opinion the case is embraced by C. C. P. sec. 126. “The plaintiff may unite in the same complaint, several causes of action, whether they be such as may have heretofore been denominated legal or equitable, or both when they all arise out of--
1st. The same transaction, or transactions connected with the same subject of action,” &c. The purpose being to extend the right of plaintiffs to join actions, not merely by including equitable as well as legal causes of action, but to make the ground broad enough to cover all causes of action, which a plaintiff may have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seibel v. Byers
...said: 'The court will not entertain fragmentary or premature appeals. [Citing authorities.] As was said by Pearson, C. J., in Hamlin v. Tucker, 72 N.C. 502, the court will not 'take two bites at a In Hampton v. Board of Com'rs of Logan County, 4 Idaho 646, 43 P. 324, 326, an appeal was take......
-
Lee v. Thornton
...and approved in Young v. Young, 81 N.C. 91, in King v. Farmer, 88 N.C. 22, and in Heggie v. Hill, 95 N.C. 303. To same purport is Hamlin v. Tucker, 72 N.C. 502. That the 'main relief may be effectual, the plaintiff may state in his bill any number of conveyances, improperly obtained from hi......
-
Dorrance v. Dorrance
...Courtney v. Blackwell, 150 Mo. 245; Duvall v. Tinsley, 54 Mo. 93; Lane v. Dowd, 172 Mo. 174; Jewett v. Railroad, 45 Mo.App. 58; Hamlin v. Tucker, 72 N.C. 502. J. Lamm, C.J., and Graves, Faris and Walker, JJ., concur; Bond, J., dissents; Woodson, J., not sitting. OPINION In Banc BROWN, J. --......
-
Craven County v. Investment Co.
...to cover all causes of actions, which a plaintiff may have against a defendant, arising out of the same subject of action." Hamlin v. Tucker, 72 N.C. 502. It is said in opinion that the court may of its own motion refuse to pass upon matters which are not germane if the action becomes so co......