Kearns v. Primm

Plaintiffs’ allegations concern separate and distinct subjects, namely, (1) the Dogwood stock, (2) the Dyers stock, (3) the Marie Wright claim, and (4) Lots Nos. 19 and 20 of the “A. A. Primm Estate Subdivision.” Plaintiffs did not state separately the cause of action relating to each of these subjects as required by G.S. 1-123 and by Rule 20 (2), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, 802. Hence, the complaint was subject to demurrer on the ground plaintiffs “improperly united” several causes of action. G.S. 1-127(5); G.S. 1-123; Heath v. Kirkman, 240 N.C. 303, 306, 82 S.E. 2d…