Court Opinion

ID: 9810635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:54:59.008002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:07.700565
License: Public Domain

Walker, J.,
concurring in result: The transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant were separate and distinct from each other. There was not one and the same transaction or a series of transactions connected with the same subject of action. The case does not, therefore, fall within the provision of the first subdivision of section 469 of the Revisal, unless we are prepared to hold that all transactions between the same parties of whatever kind or description may be so classified, simply because the plaintiff may in the end have one judgment upon all his separate causes of action. If this be so, there was no use in adding the other six subdivisions. The forceful argument of Mr. Whitlock made it clear to me that subdivision 1 has no bearing upon the question. In this case, the causes of action are all of the same general description, and there is no reason why subdivision 1 should apply.
But my opinion is that the joinder of the several causes of action can be sustained under subdivision 3 of the same section, which authorizes the uniting of causes of action sounding in tort without regard to their number or to their nature, and, too, without regard .to whether they arose out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action. I do not think the case bears any resemblance to Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 244. In Solomon v. Bates, 118 N. C., 311, the several deposits made by the plaintiff, by the course of dealing with the bank, were of course finally merged into one, for the recovery of which, in solido, the suit *370was brought. There were not therefore several causes of action, but there was only one cause of action, for the recovery of the single deposit, though the ground of recovery may have consisted both in a continuing, deceitful representation as to the condition of the bank, and mismanagement on the part of the directors. But even that decision could well be sustained under subdivision 3 of section 469, if the complaint should have been construed as embracing several distinct causes of action. The quotation, in the opinion of the court, from King v. Farmer, 88 N. C., 22, presents a case which falls within one of the last six subdivisions and not within subdivision 1.
Connor, J., concurs in the concurring opinion.