From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thigpen v. Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1909
65 S.E. 750 (N.C. 1909)

Opinion

(Filed 6 October, 1909.)

Actions, Misjoinder of — Negligence — Personal Injury — Loss of Son's Services — Parties — Demurrer.

The joinder of a cause of action brought by a son, an employee, to recover of defendant cotton mill, his employer, damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by the latter's negligence, with that of the father to recover for the loss of the son's services alleged to have been caused by the same negligent act, is demurrable on the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Revisal, sec. 469.

APPEAL from W. R. Allen, J., at March Term, 1909, of LENOIR.

G. V. Cowper and Y. T. Ormond for plaintiffs.

Davis Davis for Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation.

Rouse Land for Cotton Mills.


Action to recover damages for personal injury, heard upon demurrer. by W. R. Allen, J., at LENOIR.

The plaintiffs appealed from a judgment sustaining the demurrer.


This is a suit brought by Roland Thigpen, an infant, and by Albert Thigpen, individually, against the Kinston Cotton Mills and the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation (Limited), of London, England, for injuries received by the plaintiff, Roland Thigpen, while at work in the cotton mills of the Kinston Cotton Mills.

1. The son sues to recover damages for a personal injury received while working in the cotton mills, alleged to be due to negligence of the employer. The father is joined in same action and sues to recover of the employer for the loss of his son's services.

One of the grounds of demurrer is the misjoinder of parties and causes of action.

We think the demurrer was properly sustained and the action dismissed. The son has no interest in the cause of action of the father, and the father has no interest in the cause of action of the son. It is a manifest misjoinder, both of parties and causes of action, and therefore the action cannot be divided. Revisal, sec. 469. Cromartie v. Parker, 121 N.C. 198; Morton v. Telegraph Co., 130 N.C. (98) 302; Edgerton v. Powell, 72 N.C. 64.

2. Another ground of demurrer is that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation.

The question raised by the demurrer has never been decided by this Court, and as the action is dismissed it is unnecessary to decide it now. The judgment of the Superior Court is

Affirmed.

Cited: Cooper v. Express Co., 165 N.C. 539; Campbell v. Power Co., 166 N.C. 489.

(99)


Summaries of

Thigpen v. Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1909
65 S.E. 750 (N.C. 1909)
Case details for

Thigpen v. Cotton Mills

Case Details

Full title:ROLAND THIGPEN AND ALBERT THIGPEN v. KINSTON COTTON MILLS AND THE…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1909

Citations

65 S.E. 750 (N.C. 1909)
151 N.C. 97

Citing Cases

Teague v. Oil Co.

DENNY, J. A demurrer should be sustained where there is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action, and the…

Smith v. Land Bank

It is well settled that when there is a misjoinder, both of parties and of causes of action, and a demurrer…