{
  "id": 8552139,
  "name": "POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Powell Manufacturing Co. v. Harrington Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 766SC100",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "100",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "282 F. Supp. 338",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5352672
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/282/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 F. Supp. 454",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3091463
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/311/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 412,
    "char_count": 7164,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.625,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.302720229484813e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8719852006815841
    },
    "sha256": "1b3cc1be4241b8383efbbfc590d89f082c4c0ca861f70931dae959fa902f7236",
    "simhash": "1:b95149aae96a1dfc",
    "word_count": 1050
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nAppellant contends that its Mecklenburg County complaint is not a compulsory counterclaim because it does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as that alleged in appel-lee\u2019s Bertie County claim. We disagree.\nG.S. 1A-1, Rule 18(a), provides in pertinent part that:\n\u201cA pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party\u2019s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim .if\n(1) At the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or\n(2) The opposing party brought suit upon his claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this rule.\u201d\nHere, a critical reading of the pleadings indicates that all of the allegations relate to and arise out of the same competitive advertising practices regarding technically sophisticated mechanical tobacco harvesters. Both parties have packaged sales programs designed to reach the same markets, and whether unlawful acts were committed in the course of these endeavors is a subject matter which ought to be litigated and resolved in the context of one lawsuit. See: Hy-way Heat Systems, Inc. v. Jadair, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 454 (E.D. Wis. 1970); United Fruit Co. v. Standard Fruit and Steamship Co., 282 F. Supp. 338 (Mass. 1968). As the Federal District Court, analyzing the similarly drawn Federal rule, stated at page 456 in the apparently analogous case of Hy-way Heat Systems, \u201c . . . [b]oth claims deal with misrepresentation of the defendants\u2019 products, although from divergent standpoints . . . [and] [b]oth parties are competing for the same customers . . . [while allegedly] using basically the same unfair methods.\u201d\nAppellant\u2019s action in Mecklenburg County involves purported false advertising concerning mechanical tobacco harvesters. The relationship of its claim to appellee\u2019s action in Bertie County, also involving purported false advertising of mechanical tobacco harvesters, is so logical that it must be asserted as a counterclaim in the Bertie action. A compulsory counterclaim is not limited to facts alleged in the original complaint, but includes logically related acts and conduct involving the parties. United Fruit Co., supra, at 339.\nWe have considered appellant\u2019s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.\nAppellant\u2019s action must be asserted as a compulsory counterclaim in defendant\u2019s action filed in Bertie County [74CVS459]. Therefore, defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss on grounds that the action constituted a compulsory counterclaim should have been allowed. The matter is remanded to Superior Court of Mecklenburg County for entry of an order of dismissal in accordance with this opinion.\nRemanded.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Grier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston, by Gaston H. Gage and William P. Farthing, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Pritchett, Cooke <& Burch, by Stephen R. Burch and William W. Pritchett, Jr., for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. POWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.\nNo. 766SC100\n(Filed 7 July 1976)\nPleadings \u00a7 11; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 13 \u2014 compulsory counterclaim\nPlaintiff\u2019s Mecklenburg County action based on purported false advertising by defendant of defendant\u2019s mechanical tobacco harvester was a compulsory counterclaim which should have been asserted by plaintiff in defendant\u2019s prior action in Bertie County based on purported false advertising by plaintiff of plaintiffs\u2019 mechanical tobacco harvester, and defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s Mecklenburg County action should have been allowed.\nAppeal by plaintiff Powell Manufacturing Company, Inc., (hereinafter \u201cPowell\u201d) from Hasty, Judge. Order entered 5 December 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May 1976.\nOn 12 September 1974, the first of two lawsuits was begun when Harrington Manufacturing Company, Inc., (hereinafter \u201cHarrington\u201d) brought action number 74CVS459 in Bertie County alleging that defendant Powell falsely and fraudulently advertised that Powell manufactured the \u201cexclusive CutterBar,\u201d purportedly a unique device on a tobacco harvesting machine. Harrington maintained that Powell\u2019s \u201cCutterBar\u201d was remarkably similar to Harrington\u2019s splinter-knife defoliator, and it argued that this course of advertising fostered unfair trade competition, engendered a monopolistic business climate, prejudiced and deceived the public, disparaged Harrington\u2019s business circumstance and constituted a deceptive act under G.S. 75-1.1 et seq. Harrington sought, inter alia, certain monetary relief.\nPowell\u2019s answer essentially denied the substantive allegations raised in the Bertie County complaint.\nOn 4 November 1974, several months after Harrington\u2019s action was filed in Bertie County, Powell filed an action against Harrington in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County. Powell alleged that Harrington\u2019s \u201cRoanoke Hydro-synchronized Blade Assembly,\u201d being advertised by Harrington as a \u201cdramatic breakthrough in harvesting tobacco\u201d is essentially the same machine as the one manufactured by Powell with the \u201cCutter-Bar.\u201d Powell asserted similar allegations regarding Harrington\u2019s advertising of curing racks and barns, and alleged that Harrington\u2019s purported misrepresentations were maliciously, unethically, and wilfully disseminated to the public, and were unfair and deceptive methods of competition under G.S. 75-1.1.\nHarrington moved to dismiss Powell\u2019s complaint in action 74CVS19797 on grounds that Powell\u2019s allegations should have been raised as compulsory counterclaims in Harrington\u2019s Bertie County action 74CVS459. Harrington attacked the Mecklenburg County action on the basis of Rules 12(b) (1) and 13(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\nIn its order, filed 5 December 1975, the Mecklenburg County trial court, first found that both \u201cparties allege in their respective actions identified hereinabove that they manufactured a tobacco harvesting combine sold throughout the tobacco growing areas of the southeast, and that the adverse party has falsely advertised and represented its respective machine.\u201d It then concluded, inter alia, that the \u201c . . . claim set forth by Powell Manufacturing Company, Inc. in this action constitutes a compulsory Counterclaim in that action entitled Harrington Manufacturing Company v. Powell Manufacturing Company, File No. 74-CVS-459, filed in Bertie County on September 12, 1974, and is required to be stated in said action in Bertie County.\u201d The court ordered consolidation of the Mecklenburg action with the Bertie County lawsuit. Powell, plaintiff herein, appeals.\nOther facts necessary for decision are set out in the opinion.\nGrier, Parker, Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage & Preston, by Gaston H. Gage and William P. Farthing, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nPritchett, Cooke <& Burch, by Stephen R. Burch and William W. Pritchett, Jr., for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 125,
  "last_page_order": 128
}
