Thigpen v. Kinston Cotton Mills
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Price v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. (N.C. 1968)
- Kleibor v. Rogers (N.C. 1965)
- Diamond Brand Canvas Products Co. v. Christy (N.C. 1964)
- Morton v. Thornton (N.C. 1963)
- Gaines v. Atlas Plywood Corp. (N.C. 1960)
- Teague v. Siler City Oil Co. (N.C. 1950)
- Smith v. Greensboro Joint Stock Land Bank (N.C. 1938)
- Sasser v. . Bullard (N.C. 1930)
- Campbell v. Washington Light & Power Co. (N.C. 1914)
- Greene v. . Jones (N.C. 1935)
- Citizens National Bank v. Angelo Bros. (N.C. 1927)
- Killian v. . Hanna (N.C. 1927)
- Rogers v. . Rogers (N.C. 1926)
- Bickley Clothing Co. v. Green (N.C. 1924)
- Brock & Scott Produce Co. v. Brock (N.C. 1923)
- Shore v. . Holt (N.C. 1923)
- Roberts v. Utility Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1921)
- Rose v. Fremont Warehouse & Improvement Co. (N.C. 1921)
- Ingram v. . Corbit (N.C. 1919)
- Ingram v. Corbit (N.C. 1919)
- Cooper v. Southern Express Co. (N.C. 1914)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is a suit brought by Roland Thigpen, an infant, and by Albert Thigpen, individually, against the Kinston Cotton Mills and the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation (Limited), of London, England, for' injuries received by the plaintiff, Eoland Thigpen, while at work in the cotton mills of the Kinston Cotton Mills.
1. The son sues to recover damages for a personal injury received while working in the cotton mills, alleged to .be due to negligence of the employer. The father is joined in same action and sues to recover of the employer for the loss of his son’s services.
One of the grounds of demurrer is the misjoinder of parties and causes of action.
We think the demurrer was properly sustained and the action dismissed. The son has no interest in the cause of action of the father, and the father has no interest in the cause of action of the son. It is a manifest misjoinder, both of parties and causes of action, and therefore the action cannot be divided. Revisal, *98 sec. 469. Cromartie v. Parker, 121 N. C., 198; Morton v. Telegraph Co., 130 N. C., 302; Edgerton v. Powell, 72 N. C., 64.
2. Another ground of demurrer is that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation.
The question raised by the demurrer has never been decided by this Court; and as the action is dismissed it is unnecessary to decide it now. The judgment of the Superior Court is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.