R. G. Chapman & Co v. Mclawhorn
| Decision Date | 24 February 1909 |
| Citation | 63 S.E. 721,150 N.C. 166 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | R. G. CHAPMAN & CO. v. McLAWHORN. |
Parties (§ 6*)—Real Party in Interest.
An agent, authorized to sell goods for his principal under a contract stipulating that the goods shall remain the property of the principal until sold, and that after sale the cash, notes, accounts, or other proceeds shall belong to him, is neither the legal nor equitable owner of a claim for the price for goods sold, nor a trustee of an express trust, and cannot sue the buyer for the price, whether the agent is released from his guaranty of sales or not.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parties, Dec. Dig. § 6.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; O. H. Allen, Judge.
Action by R. G. Chapman & Co. against Charles McLawhorn. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
F. G. James and Jarvis & Blow, for appellant.
J. L. Fleming and Skinner & Whedbee, for appellee.
This was an action to recover for guano sold the defendant. The answer averred that the guano was bought of plaintiffs as agents of the Royster Guano Company. Chapman testified that his firm sold the guano as agents for the Royster Guano Company, on a del credere commission; that is, the agents guaranteed payment on all sales, and were to turn over all notes and accounts, if called for, though he says they were not always called for. The plaintiffs put in evidence their contract with the guano company, which provides "all the above fertilizers to be consigned to you as herein provided as our agents, remain our property until sold by you and that after sale by you the cash, notes, accounts or other proceeds of sale are our property." Chapman further testified that his firm had a subsequent agreement with Royster Guano Company that if the plaintiffs brought this action, the guano company were to be responsible for the costs, and if the plaintiffs did not collect this bill, they would not pay the guano company. In any aspect of the case, whether the plaintiffs were released from their guaranty of sales or not, they were simply agents for Royster Guano Company, which owned the guano and the debt incurred by the defendant for its purchase. "Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." As it is clear that the proceeds of any judgment in this action, if recovered by the plaintiffs, would be the property of the Royster Guano Company, the court properly allowed the motion for nonsuit on the ground that "the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darden v. Boyette
...action, and therefore should be nonsuited. If such contention is correct, it was error not to nonsuit the plaintiff. Chapman & Co. v. McLawhorn, 150 N.C. 166, 63 S.E. 721; Vaughan & Barnes v. Davenport, 157 N.C. 156, 72 S.E. 842; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Green, 200 N.C. 535, 157 S.E. 797;......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Rochamora
... ... Exum, supra. If held for collection, the plaintiff is ... not the real party in interest under our statute of Civil ... Procedure. Chapman v. McLawhorn, 150 N.C. 166, 63 S.E ... 721; Martin v. Mask, 158 N.C. 436, 442, 74 S.E. 343, ... 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 641 ... In ... ...
-
Underwood v. Stafford, 447
...G.S. § 55--32; Skinner v. Empresa Transformadora, S.A., 252 N.C. 320, 113 S.E.2d 717; G.S. § 1--57. In the case of Chapman & Co. v. McLawhorn, 150 N.C. 166, 63 S.E. 721, an agent for Royster Guano Company brought action in his own right to recover the account due Royster. The Court, in affi......
-
Howard v. Boyce, 27
...555; Choate Rental Co. v. Justice, 211 N.C. 54, 188 S.E. 609; First Nat. Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N.C. 1, 136 S.E. 259; Chapman & Co. v. McLawhorn, 150 N.C. 166, 63 S.E. 721. A motion in the cause is the prosecution of an action within the meaning of G.S. § 1-57. Webster's Third New Internati......