Page 516 |
Previous | 516 of 820 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
492 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I7
Hager v. Equipment Co.
damage ensued and the injury was inflicted; but now as be-tween
common carriers themselves, a cause of action would not
arise in behalf of one carrier against the other until the com-mon
carrier suing for the same had paid the damages, as until
that had been done it would have sustained no injury." Id. at
535-36, 82 S.E. at 876.
In the case of Godfrey v. Power Go., 223 N.C. 647, 27 S.E.
2d 736, the question for decision was whether one of several
defendants in an action for wrongful death arising out of a
joint tort could have another joint tort-feasor brought in and
made a party defendant for the purpose of enforcing contribu-tion,
when plaintiff's right of action against the other tort-feasor
had been lost by the lapse of time. The Supreme Court
answered in the affirmative and in an opinion by Chief Justice
Stacy stated :
"The right accrues when judgment is obtained in an
action arising out of a joint tort. From this it follows that
a contingent or inchoate right to enforce contribution arises
to each defendant tort-feasor at the time of the institution
of the action to recover on the joint tort. As long then as
the plaintiff's right to recover in such suit remains unde-termined,
the contingent or inchoate right of each defend-ant
tort-feasor to enforce contribution continues, and, on
rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff, this right
matures into a cause of action. 13 Am. Jur., 51. Thus it is
rooted in and springs from the plaintiff's suit and projects
itself beyond that suit, but it is not dependent on the plain-tiff's
continued right to sue all the joint tort-feasors." Id.
at 649-50, 27 S.E. 2d at 737-38.
Numerous authorities speak to the specific point raised in
this case:
In 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitations of Actions, 5 287, at 802 we
find :
"The general rule is that where the original defend-ant
alleges facts showing that the additional defendant is
liable over to him, joinder is generally held to be proper,
and the fact that the statute of limitations will bar the
plaintiff from a direct recovery against the additional de-fendant
has no effect on the defendant's right to enforce
his claim of contribution or indemnity, since the cause of
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.017, Fall Session Session 1972 - Spring Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 17, Fall Session Session 1972 - Spring Session 1973. Cited as 17 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36.1 MB; 820 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_017.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 516 |
| Full Text | 492 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS [I7 Hager v. Equipment Co. damage ensued and the injury was inflicted; but now as be-tween common carriers themselves, a cause of action would not arise in behalf of one carrier against the other until the com-mon carrier suing for the same had paid the damages, as until that had been done it would have sustained no injury." Id. at 535-36, 82 S.E. at 876. In the case of Godfrey v. Power Go., 223 N.C. 647, 27 S.E. 2d 736, the question for decision was whether one of several defendants in an action for wrongful death arising out of a joint tort could have another joint tort-feasor brought in and made a party defendant for the purpose of enforcing contribu-tion, when plaintiff's right of action against the other tort-feasor had been lost by the lapse of time. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative and in an opinion by Chief Justice Stacy stated : "The right accrues when judgment is obtained in an action arising out of a joint tort. From this it follows that a contingent or inchoate right to enforce contribution arises to each defendant tort-feasor at the time of the institution of the action to recover on the joint tort. As long then as the plaintiff's right to recover in such suit remains unde-termined, the contingent or inchoate right of each defend-ant tort-feasor to enforce contribution continues, and, on rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff, this right matures into a cause of action. 13 Am. Jur., 51. Thus it is rooted in and springs from the plaintiff's suit and projects itself beyond that suit, but it is not dependent on the plain-tiff's continued right to sue all the joint tort-feasors." Id. at 649-50, 27 S.E. 2d at 737-38. Numerous authorities speak to the specific point raised in this case: In 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitations of Actions, 5 287, at 802 we find : "The general rule is that where the original defend-ant alleges facts showing that the additional defendant is liable over to him, joinder is generally held to be proper, and the fact that the statute of limitations will bar the plaintiff from a direct recovery against the additional de-fendant has no effect on the defendant's right to enforce his claim of contribution or indemnity, since the cause of |
