Kearns v. Heitman

• Decision Date: 26 November 1889
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Kearns v. Heitman.

10 S.E. 467

(104 N.C. 332)

Kearns

v.Heitman.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 26, 1889.

Splitting Cause of Action—Jurisdiction of Justice.

Where notes are paid to one of two joint owners, he becomes at once liable for half the amount, as a gross sum had and received, and the other joint owner cannot make demands, on the notes severally, the basis of separate actions to recover the collections, so as to bring each action within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

Appeal from superior court, Davidson county.

Action begun in the justice's court by A. H. Kearns against Charles L. Heitman, to recover part of an amount paid defendant on certain notes owned by them jointly. Plaintiff divided his claim into four separate demands against defendant, so that each demand, being the basis of an action, could be brought within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace. Defendant claimed that the demand against him was for a gross sum had and received, arid that it could not be made the basis of separate actions, and moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace. The motion was refused, and judgment entered, from which defendant appealed to the superior court. The motion to dismiss was renewed on appeal, and, being denied, the case was tried by a jury. On a verdict for plaintiff, judgment was again entered, from which defendant again appeals.

Robbins & Raper, for appellant. M. H. Pinnix, for appellee.

Merrimon, C. J. The defendant owned divers promissory notes, aggregating alarge sum, and sold and assigned a one-half interest in each of them to J. W. Finch; and the latter afterwards, for value, sold his interest in certain of them to the plaintiff. The defendant afterwards, and before the bringing of this action, collected the notes, wherein the plaintiff so had a one-half interest, and the plaintiff's share of the money so collected was largely in excess of $200. The plaintiff brought this action in the court of a justice of the peace to recover from the defendant a part of his share of the money so collected by him, believing and contending that he had the right to divide his demand into four several parts, each for a sum less than $200, and thus give the court of a justice of the peace jurisdiction, inasmuch as each of the notes so collected was for a sum less than $200, and within such jurisdiction. The defendant insisted by his answer and on the trial that the plaintiff's demand was for a gross sum of money much greater than $200, and he could not divide the same into four parts, so as to give the court of a justice of the peace jurisdiction of each part, and moved to dismiss the action. The court denied this motion, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $179.54, "and for costs. The defendant, having excepted, appealed.

As soon as the principal defendant collected any one or any part of one or all of the promissory notes in which the plaintiff had a half interest, one-half of the money as such, so collected, became that of the plaintiff, and the law at once implied a promise...