Burton v. City of Reidsville
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtJoiiNsoN, J.
In order to justify joinder of parties plaintiff the interests of the plaintiffs must be consistent. True, the unity or identity of interest required at common law is not necessary under the Code (Gr.S. 1-68, 1-70; Wilson v. Motor Lines, 207 N.C. 263, 176 S.E. 750), but two or more plaintiffs representing- opposing interests with reference to the main purpose of the action may not be joined. Osborne v. Canton, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E. 2d 265; McIntosh, N. C. Practice and Procedure, Sec. 228, p. 212; 39 Am. Jur., Parties, See. 29, p. 892; Hallett v. Moore, 282 Mass. 380, 185 N.E. 474, 91 A.L.R.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- In Re Housing Authority of City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Byers v. . ByersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Byers v. ByersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Hallett v. MooreMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wilson v. Crab Orchard Development CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Sale v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Sykes v. BelkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Hill v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Lane v. GriswoldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.