Muse v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 26 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 93,93 |
| Citation | 66 S.E.2d 783,234 N.C. 195 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MUSE, v. MORRISON et al. |
Cecil C. Jackson, Asheville, for plaintiff appellant.
T. A. Clark, Canton, Jones & Ward and Walter R. McGuire, Asheville, for defendants appellees.
Appellant challenges, and we hold properly so, the correctness of the decision of the court below as shown in the judgment from which this appeal is taken.
The declared purpose of this action is to recover damages for alleged injury to plaintiff allegedly caused by wrongful acts done by one or more of the defendants as a part of and in furtherance of an alleged conspiracy between defendants 'to drive the plaintiff out of his work, trade and business as a plumber and out of the town of Canton, N. C., and Haywood County'.
'A 'conspiracy' is generally defined to be 'an agreement between two or more individuals to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way.' ' State v. Dalton, 168 N.C. 204, 83 S.E. 693, 694; State ex rel. Swann v. Martin, 191 N.C. 404, 132 S.E. 16; McNeill v. Hall, 220 N.C. 73, 16 S.E.2d 456; Holt v. Holt, 232 N.C. 497, 61 S.E.2d 448, 451.
In the Holt case, supra, in opinion by Ervin, J., this Court held that .
The liability of the conspirators is joint and several. That 'Every one who does enter into a common purpose or design is equally deemed in law a party to every act which had before been done by the others, and a party to every act which may afterwards be done by any of the others in furtherance of such common design', as quoted by Smith, C. J., in State v. Jackson, 82 N.C. 565. See also State v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 771, 182 S.E. 643; State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 20 S.E.2d 360; Safie Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E.2d 577.
In the light of these principles, and admitting the facts alleged in the complaint, which we must do in testing the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by demurrer, Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N.C. 517, 142 S.E. 761; Poole v. State Board of Cosmetic Art Examiners, 221 N.C. 199, 19 S.E.2d 635, and numerous other cases, we are of opinion and hold that there is neither misjoinder of parties to the action nor misjoinder of causes of action alleged in the complaint. A conspiracy between defendants is alleged in the complaint. There are allegations that numerous wrongful acts were unlawfully, maliciously and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. NASH JOHNSON & SONS'FARMS, INC., No. COA99-857.
...v. Deen, 310 N.C. 75, 87, 310 S.E.2d 326, 334 (1984). See also Holt v. Holt, 232 N.C. 497, 61 S.E.2d 448 (1950); and Muse v. Morrison, 234 N.C. 195, 66 S.E.2d 783 (1951). Here, the complaint is replete with allegations of a conspiracy by and between the defendants, acts done by some or all ......
-
Krawiec v. Manly
..., 310 N.C. at 87, 310 S.E.2d at 334 (first citing Shope v. Boyer , 268 N.C. 401, 150 S.E.2d 771 (1966) ; then citing Muse v. Morrison , 234 N.C. 195, 66 S.E.2d 783 (1951) ). Therefore, we have determined that a complaint sufficiently states a claim for civil conspiracy when it alleges "(1) ......
-
Taylor v. Bettis
...of evidence.” Id. In short, “[t]he gravaman of the action is the resultant wrong, and not the conspiracy itself.” Muse v. Morrison, 234 N.C. 195, 198, 66 S.E.2d 783, 785 (1951). 13. In this respect, the Fourth Circuit has diverged from other circuit courts of appeals. The federal courts of ......
-
Szulik v. Tag Virgin Islands, Inc.
...(2002); see also Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617, 635–36, 894 A.2d 240, 254–55 (2006); Muse v. Morrison, 234 N.C. 195, 198, 66 S.E.2d 783, 784–85 (1951).7 The Szuliks have not alleged sufficient facts to show that a civil conspiracy involving Feiner existed. See, e.g......