Lillian Knitting Mills Co. v. Earle
| Decision Date | 13 December 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 594,594 |
| Citation | 62 S.E.2d 492,233 N.C. 74 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | LILLIAN KNITTING MILLS CO. v. EARLE et al. |
R. L. Smith & Son, Albemarle, for plaintiff, appellee.
Guy T. Carswell, Charles W. Bundy, and Carl Horn, Jr., all of Charlotte, for defendants, appellants.
There is undoubtedly a misjoinder both of parties plaintiff and of causes of action where two or more persons having distinct causes of action against the same defendants join as plaintiffs in one suit. G.S. §§ 1-127, 1-132; Roberts v. Utility Mfg. Co., 181 N.C. 204, 106 S.E. 664.
But such is not the case at bar. The objection that there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff lacks substance, for the very simple reason that the Lillian Knitting Mills Company is the sole party plaintiff.
The contentions that there is a misjoinder of causes of action and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff against defendants are likewise untenable. Properly interpreted, the complaint states only one cause of action, towit, a cause of action belonging to the plaintiff alone for the recovery of damages allegedly suffered by it as the direct result of actionable fraud on the part of the defendants. Such cause of action is well pleaded under the rule that corporate directors and officers are personally liable for making fraudulent misrepresentations of fact as to the financial condition of the corporation to persons who deal with the corporation and suffer loss by reason of their reliance on such misrepresentations. Harper v. Oak Ridge Supply Co., 184 N.C. 204, 114 S.E. 173; Houston v. Thornton, 122 N.C. 365, 29 S.E. 827, 65 Am.St.Rep. 699; Caldwell v. Bates, 118 N.C. 323, 24 S.E. 481; Solomon v. Bates, 118 N.C. 311, 24 S.E. 478, 54 Am.St.Rep. 725; Tate v. Bates, 118 N.C. 287, 24 S.E. 482, 54 Am.St.Rep. 719. See also: Thomas v. Wright, 98 N.C. 272, 3 S.E. 487. The plaintiff does not seek to cancel the conveyances mentioned in the complaint. His allegations relating to the transfers of the property of the Earle Hosiery Corporation are simply inserted in elaboration of his claims that the representations allegedly made to it by the defendants were false and fraudulent in nature and caused it to suffer loss.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips and Jordan, Inc. v. Bostic
...therefore, is a claim that belongs to the creditor and not the corporation." Id. at 26–27, 560 S.E.2d at 823 (citing Mills Co. v. Earle, 233 N.C. 74, 62 S.E.2d 492 (1950)). {35} In its Complaint Plaintiff alleges that: Defendants were officers, shareholders, and or directors of Defendants' ......
-
Tillery Environmental LLC v. A&D Holdings, Inc.
... ... 661, 670, 522 S.E.2d 306, 312-13 (1999)); ... see also Palomino Mills, Inc. v. Davidson Mills ... Corp. , 230 N.C. 286, 292, 52 S.E.2d 915, 919 ... , 327 N.C. 491, 518, 398 S.E.2d 586, 600 ... (1990); Lillian Knitting Mills Co. v. Earle , 233 ... N.C. 74, 76, 62 S.E.2d 492, 493 ... ...
-
Swenson v. Thibaut
...leaving only the causes of action against the defendant directors. The holding of Mills Co. v. Earle, 233 N.C. 74, 62 S.E.2d 492 (1950), (which opinion was also written by Justice Ervin) stands for the proposition that a cause of action against corporate directors for malfeasance is distinc......
-
Aldridge v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
... ... chose not to pursue). See, e.g. , In re Midstate ... Mills , 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3105, at *19 (Bankr. W.D. N.C ... Sept. 15, 2015) ... Carolina law); Lillian Knitting Mills Co. v. Earle , ... 233 N.C. 74, 76, 62 S.E.2d 492, 493 ... ...