{
  "id": 8630325,
  "name": "G. A. FOOTE, G. S. FOOTE, C. C. HAYES and R. C. OWEN, Trading and Doing Business as FOOTE BROS. & COMPANY; and GUGGENHIME & COMPANY, Dried Fruit Division of HUNT FOODS, INC., v. C. W. DAVIS & CO., INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Foote v. C. W. Davis & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1949-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "422",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 422"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 849",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628342
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N.C. 677",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618192
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0677-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 N.C. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606809
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/217/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 S.E. 2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621412
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627977
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S.E. 2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 S.E. 2d 270",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1701956434310833e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5861957589033183
    },
    "sha256": "92c8f3d4f3452b03c15dbdf8e624c40a319d75154e0571f1d07b753d173f6075",
    "simhash": "1:bbc9417d35549267",
    "word_count": 728
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G. A. FOOTE, G. S. FOOTE, C. C. HAYES and R. C. OWEN, Trading and Doing Business as FOOTE BROS. & COMPANY; and GUGGENHIME & COMPANY, Dried Fruit Division of HUNT FOODS, INC., v. C. W. DAVIS & CO., INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Babnhill, J.\nThe record before us presents this situation: Defendant contracted to purchase one hundred cases of prunes but later breached the contract. Plaintiff Foote Bros. & Company asserts that it was the vendor and as such is entitled to damages for the wrongful breach of contract. On the other hand, Guggenhime & Company alleges that it, as vendor, sold the merchandise to defendant through Foote Bros. & Company as agent or broker, and prays that it recover the damages resulting from the defendant\u2019s breach of contract.\nThus defendant is faced with two separate and distinct demands. Foote Bros. & Company pleads one contract, Guggenhime another. One is asserted by one plaintiff and one by the other. Each plaintiff says it was the vendor. There is no joint or common interest in the claim asserted. Instead, each contradicts the other. If Foote\u2019s claim is well founded, Guggenhime has no interest therein. If Guggenhime was the vendor, such claim as Foote Bros. & Company may have for commissions and other charges is against Guggenhime and not the defendant. If Foote Bros. & Company was the vendor, Guggenhime must look to it for payment.\nThis presents a clear case of misjoinder of parties and causes of action. Hence the demurrer was well advised.\u2019 The order overruling the same must be held for error on authority of numerous decisions of this Court, among which the following are in point: Davis v. Whitehurst, 229 N.C. 226; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174, 22 S.E. 2d 270; Wingler v. Miller, 221 N.C. 137, 19 S.E. 2d 247; Frederick v. Insurance Co., 221 N.C. 409, 20 S.E. 2d 372; Osborne v. Canton, 219 N.C. 139, 13 S.E. 2d 265; Burleson v. Burleson, 217 N.C. 336, 7 S.E. 2d 706; Smith v. Land Bank, 213 N.C. 343, 196 S.E. 481; Vollers Co. v. Todd, 212 N.C. 677, 194 S.E. 84.\nTbe new party was not brought in on motion of defendant. It acted voluntarily. Hence, Grant v. McGraw, 228 N.C. 745, 46 S.E. 2d 849, is not controlling here.\nTbe judgment below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Babnhill, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stevens, Burgwin & Mintz for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Isaac 0. Wright for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. A. FOOTE, G. S. FOOTE, C. C. HAYES and R. C. OWEN, Trading and Doing Business as FOOTE BROS. & COMPANY; and GUGGENHIME & COMPANY, Dried Fruit Division of HUNT FOODS, INC., v. C. W. DAVIS & CO., INC.\n(Filed 11 May, 1949.)\nPleadings \u00a7 19b: Sales \u00a7 22\u2014\nPlaintiff instituted action to recover for breach of contract by'defendant to purchase a shipment of prunes. Upon defendant\u2019s allegation that plaintiff was merely broker, a third party was brought in on plaintiff\u2019s motion, which third party alleged that it was vendor and entitled to recover against defendant for breach of the contract. Held: Defendant\u2019s demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes should have been sustained, since defendant was confronted with two parties plaintiff each of which asserted that it was the vendor, and the validity of the claim of either one of them against defendant would render the claim of the other untenable.\nAppeal by defendant from Burney, J., December Term, 1948, New HaNOVER.\nCivil action to recover damages for breach, of contract to purchase a shipment of prunes.\nPlaintiff Foote Bros. & Company'alleges that defendant, on 28 August 1946, placed with it an order for one hundred cases of prunes to be shipped from California to Norfolk and thence to Wilmington; that it purchased the prunes and had them shipped to Norfolk where they were held until after January 1 at defendant\u2019s request; that later the prunes were shipped to defendant at Wilmington, but the shipment was refused. It instituted this action to recover damages for the breach of said contract.\nThe defendant, answering, alleged in part that it dealt with Foote Bros. & Company only as agent or broker and that Guggenhime & Company was the vendor and is the real party in interest.\nThereupon, Guggenhime & Company, on motion of counsel for plaintiff, was made party plaintiff. It thereafter filed complaint in which it alleges that defendant placed the order for prunes with Foote Bros. & Company as its agent and that it, through Foote, sold one hundred cases of prunes to defendant, delivery of which was refused. It seeks to recover, in its own right, damages for the alleged breach of contract.\nDefendant demurred for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The demurrer was overruled and defendant appealed.\nStevens, Burgwin & Mintz for plaintiff appellee.\nIsaac 0. Wright for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0422-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 480
}
