Lillian Knitting Mills Co. v. Earle
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Phillips and Jordan, Inc. v. Bostic (North Carolina Business Court 2012)
- Aldridge v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (North Carolina Business Court 2019)
- Tillery Envtl. v. A&D Holdings, Inc. (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Associated Hardwoods, Inc. v. Lail (North Carolina Business Court 2018)
- Phillips and Jordan, Inc. v. Bostic (North Carolina Business Court 2009)
- Angell v. Kelly (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 2004)
- Keener Lumber Co., Inc. v. Perry (N.C. Ct. App. 2002)
- Van Dam Egg Co. v. Allendale Farms, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
- Swenson v. Thibaut (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
- Austin v. Tire Treads, Inc. (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- Ls Mtron v. Escorts, Ltd. (North Carolina Business Court 2012)
- Branch v. Board of Education of Robeson County (N.C. 1951)
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
There is undoubtedly a misjoinder both of parties plaintiff and of causes of action where two or more persons having distinct causes of action against the same defendants join as plaintiffs in one suit. G.S. 1-127, 1-132; Roberts v. Mfg. Co., 181 N.C. 204, 106 S.E. 664.
But such is not the case at bar. The objection that there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff lacks substance, for the very simple reason that the Lillian Knitting Mills Company is the sole party plaintiff.
*76 Tbe contentions tbat there is a misjoinder of canses of action and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of plaintiff against defendants are likewise untenable. Properly-interpreted, the complaint states only one cause of action, to wit, a cause of action belonging to the plaintiff alone for the recovery of damages allegedly suffered by it as the direct result of actionable fraud on the part of the defendants. Such cause of action is well pleaded under the rule that corporate directors and officers are personally liable for making fraudulent misrepresentations of fact as to the financial condition of the corporation to persons who deal with the corporation and suffer loss by reason of their reliance on such misrepresentations. Harper v. Supply Co., 184 N.C. 204, 114 S.E. 173; Houston v. Thornton, 122 N.C. 365, 29 S.E. 827, 65 Am. S. R. 699; Caldwell v. Bates, 118 N.C. 323, 24 S.E. 481; Solomon v. Bates, 118 N.C. 311, 24 S.E. 478, 54 Am. S. R. 725; Tate v. Bates, 118 N.C. 287, 24 S.E. 482, 54 Am. S. R. 719. See also: Thomas v. Wright, 98 N.C. 272, 3 S.E. 487. The plaintiff does not seek to cancel the conveyances mentioned in the complaint. His allegations relating to the transfers of the property of the Earle Hosiery Corporation are simply inserted in elaboration of his claims that the representations allegedly made to it by the defendants were false and fraudulent in nature and caused it to suffer loss.
For the reasons given, the judgment overruling the demurrer is
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.