Peed v. Burleson's, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 September 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 22,22 |
Citation | 89 S.E.2d 256,242 N.C. 628 |
Parties | Russell L. PEED and J. M. Booth v. BURLESON'S, lnc., E. C. Burleson, Charies R. Pinkston and Richard A. Brown. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
J. W. Haynes and Zebulon Weaver, Jr., Asheville, and Rodman & Rodman, Washington, D. C., for defendants Burleson's Inc., E.C. Burleson, and Charles R. Pinkston.
Only one cause of action is stated in the complaint, and that is the cause of action against the defendants for the wrongful conversion of the shipment of potatoes.
We have here, in the first instance, a case of bailment in which the respective rights of the bailor and the bailee to recover for the conversion of the bailed property is at issue.
Of course the bailor, being the owner of the property, can maintain an action for the recovery of the bailed property converted by third parties while the property was in the hands of the bailee. That right is not challenged in this action.
It is equally true that the bailee has such an interest in the property in his possession as entitles him to maintain an action against third parties for damage to or conversion of the property. Asheville & E. T. R. Co. v. Baird, 164 N.C. 253, 80 S.E. 406; 6 A.J. 400, sec. 302 et seq.
Hopkins v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 224 N.C. 137, 29 S.E.2d 455, 457; 6 A.J. 403.
The question here presented is this: May the bailor and bailee jointly maintain an action for the conversion of the bailed property? Our statute answers in the affirmative: 'All persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded may be joined as plaintiffs, either jointly, severally, or in the alternative, except as otherwise provided.' G.S. § 1-68; Wilson v. Horton Motor Lines, 207 N.C. 263, 176 S.E. 750; McIntosh, N. C. P. & P. 213, sec. 229.
'* * * Where, through trespass of a third person during the continuance of a bailment, the bailed property is converted, lost, or injured, not only does the bailee in possession have a right of action for the interference with his right of possession or special property, but there exists, in general, a concurrent right in the owner or bailor to recover for the interference with his general property rights or reversionary interest in the subject of the bailment.' 6 A.J. 403.
In order to justify the joinder of parties plaintiff, the interest of the plaintiffs must be consistent. However, the unity or identity required by common law is not necessary. Burton v. City of Reidsville, 240 N.C. 577, 83 S.E.2d 651; 53 A.J. 929.
To authorize two parties to join as plaintiffs in one action against third parties for the conversion of bailed property, it must be made to appear that (1) the causes of action of the plaintiffs both arose out of the same transaction or a transaction connected...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Hilley
...and satisfaction so as to prevent the owner from bringing an action against the third-party tortfeasor. See also Peed v. Burleson's, Inc., 242 N.C. 628, 89 S.E.2d 256, where both bailor and bailee were allowed to sue jointly a third party for conversion, although the bailee had paid the bai......
-
Culbertson v. Rogers
... ... 319, 104 S.E. 653.' ... In Ogburn v. Sterchi Bros. Stores, Inc., 218 N.C. 507, 11 S.E.2d 460, 462, the defendant assigned as error the refusal of the court to ... ...
-
Neff v. Queen City Coach Co.
...interest. A bailor and bailee may jointly maintain an action for the conversion of or injury to the bailed property. Peed v. Burleson's, Inc.,242 N.C. 628, 89 S.E.2d 256; G.S. § 1A--1, Rule Defendant next contends that its motions to dismiss should have been allowed because certain of plain......
-
Frockt v. Goodloe
...for the loss."), overruled in part on other grounds, Jones v. Bailey, 246 N.C. 599, 602, 99 S.E.2d 768 (1957); Peed v. Burleson's, Inc., 242 N.C. 628, 630, 89 S.E.2d 256 (1955) (bailee possesses interest in bailed property sufficient to allow him to sue third party in own On oral argument, ......