Legal Opinion

Hayes v. City of Wilmington

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 15, 1954No. 593PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

Defendant Cooper was entitled, if at all, to have the additional defendants made parties defendant under the statute which permits contribution between joint tort-feasors, G.S. 1-240.

At common law no right of action for contribution existed between or among joint tort-feasors. The question could not-be raised either by independent suit, after judgment had been rendered against one of the joint tort-feasors, or in the original action by the party injured against one of them. The right is purely statutory, Hoft v. Mohn, 215 N.C. 397, 2 S.E. 2d 23; Lineberger v. Gastonia, 196 N.C. 445, 146 S.E.…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Westchester Lighting Co. v. Westchester County Small Estates Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
  3. Ballinger v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Murray v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Smith v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Hayes v. City of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. Potter v. Frosty Morn Meats, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Phillips v. Hassett Mining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  4. Ledford v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  5. Etheridge v. Carolina Power & Light CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API