Court Opinion

ID: 9582946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:33:03.300826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:46.396605
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
concurring: The original defendant’s cross complaint against its codefendants, Singleton and wife, is sufficient in form to *420invoke the doctrine of indemnity, commonly referred to as primary and secondary liability, as between the defendants. While the appellant seems to have placed chief emphasis on the idea of contribution, both in the court below and on appeal here, nevertheless the cross complaint, when viewed in the light of its general tenor, would seem to put to test the doctrine of primary and secondary liability ahead of that of contribution. The princijfies of joinder governing primary and secondary liability operate quite apart from and independent of the 1929 statute, now codified as G.S. 1-240, which permits contribution between joint tort-feasors. Clothing Store v. Ellis Stone & Co., 233 N.C. 126, 63 S.E. 2d 118; Johnson v. Asheville, 196 N.C. 550, 146 S.E. 229; Taylor v. Construction Co., 195 N.C. 30, 141 S.E. 492, and cases cited. On this record the j oinder of Singleton and wife and the plea over against them may be upheld both under the contribution statute and under the rules of joinder governing the doctrine of primary and secondary liability.