Case Name: J. J. JOHNSON and O. H. LYON, Guardian for TAZWELL WHEELOCK, v. W. B. COPPERSMITH and MARSHALL H. JONES, Trading as COPPERSMITH & COMPANY, and ELIZABETH CITY IRON WORKS, a Corporation
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1937-03-17
Citations: 211 N.C. 734
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. J. JOHNSON and O. H. LYON, Guardian for TAZWELL WHEELOCK, v. W. B. COPPERSMITH and MARSHALL H. JONES, Trading as COPPERSMITH & COMPANY, and ELIZABETH CITY IRON WORKS, a Corporation.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 211
Pages: 734–734

Head Matter:
J. J. JOHNSON and O. H. LYON, Guardian for TAZWELL WHEELOCK, v. W. B. COPPERSMITH and MARSHALL H. JONES, Trading as COPPERSMITH & COMPANY, and ELIZABETH CITY IRON WORKS, a Corporation.
(Filed 17 March, 1937.)
Appeal by defendants from Barnhill, J., at October Term, 1936, of WASHINGTON.
No error.
W. L. Whitley and H. S. Ward for plaintiffs, appellees.
Zeb Vance Norman for defendants, appellants.

Opinion:
PbR Otoiam.
This was an action to recover damages for the failure of the defendants to return certain logging equipment, in accordance with the terms of a consent judgment rendered in a previous suit between the parties, and also for damages for the deterioration of portions thereof which were returned. Upon issues submitted, the jury assessed plaintiffs' damages at $650.00.
The principal contention of defendants, appellants, was that by reason of a settlement with defendant Iron Works, plaintiffs should be held to have released their claim against defendants Coppersmith and Jones, but the value of the property affected by plaintiffs' adjustment of a separate controversy with the Iron Works was excluded from the consideration of the jury.
The appellants and the Iron Works were not joint tort-feasors, nor did the plaintiffs, by settlement of another and different claim with the latter, obtain satisfaction for the matters here litigated. Mason v. Stephens, 168 N. C., 370; Slade v. Sherrod, 175 N. C., 346; Young v. Anderson, 33 Idaho, 522, 50 A. L. R., 1056.
The controversy related chiefly to questions of fact which have been determined in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon the record, we find
No error.