Johnson v. Coppersmith

• Decision Date: 17 March 1937
• Docket Number: 112.
• Citation: 190 S.E. 235,211 N.C. 734
• Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. COPPERSMITH et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

190 S.E. 235

211 N.C. 734

JOHNSON et al. v. COPPERSMITH et al.

No. 112.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 17, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; M. V. Barnhill, Judge.

Action by J. J. Johnson and another against W. B. Coppersmith and another, trading as Coppersmith & Co., and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

No error.

In action for failure to return logging equipment pursuant to consent judgment, and for deterioration of equipment returned, where defendants were not joint tort-feasors, settlement of claim other than that sued on with one defendant held not to release claim against other defendants.

Zeb Vance Norman, of Plymouth, for appellants.

W. L. Whiteley, of Plymouth, and H. S. Ward, of Washington, N. C., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This was an action to recover damages for the failure of the defendants to return certain logging equipment, in accordance with the terms of a consent judgment rendered in a previous suit between the parties, and also for damages for the deterioration of portions thereof which were returned Upon issues submitted, the jury assessed plaintiffs' damages at $650.

The principal contention of defendants, appellants, was that by reason of a settlement with defendant Iron Works, plaintiff should be held to have released their claim against defendants Coppersmith and Jones, but the value of the property affected by plaintiffs' adjustment of a separate controversy with the Iron Works was excluded from the consideration of the jury.

The appellants and the Iron Works were not joint tort-feasors, nor did the plaintiffs, by settlement of another and different claim with the latter, obtain satisfaction for the matters here litigated. Mason v. Stephens, 168 N.C. 370, 84 S.E. 527; Slade v. Sherrod, 175 N.C. 346, 95 S.E. 557; Young v. Anderson, 33 Idaho, 522, 196 P. 193, 50 A.L.R. 1056.

The controversy related chiefly to questions of fact which have been determined in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon the record, we find no error.