{ "id": 2219529, "name": "N. B. HILL (Original Party Plaintiff), and LYDIA WORTHINGTON HILL and BRANT WATERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of N. B. HILL, Deceased (Additional Parties Plaintiff), v. HILL SPINNING COMPANY, INCORPORATED", "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. Hill Spinning Co.", "decision_date": "1956-10-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "554", "last_page": "559", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "244 N.C. 554" } ], "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": "63 S.E. 680", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269921 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 673", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603044 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S.E. 2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628699 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 165", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610536 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 S.E. 2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N.C. 322", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629538 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0322-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 S.E. 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N.C. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655277 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 N.C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682628 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/77/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S.E. 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655866 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621295 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.C. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698641 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/72/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 614", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12164609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625169, 8625083 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0299-02", "/nc/236/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 796", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621218 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629307 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 860", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S.E. 924", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N.C. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632001 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 104", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598018 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0303-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 665, "char_count": 14252, "ocr_confidence": 0.575, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3055775650550234e-07, "percentile": 0.6231463687651287 }, "sha256": "8535b1844ad832ee4e28eb13173c520f369fc2da8ceee93fb320e78733ddc034", "simhash": "1:9939a950775cfe09", "word_count": 2406 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Johnson, J., not sitting." ], "parties": [ "N. B. HILL (Original Party Plaintiff), and LYDIA WORTHINGTON HILL and BRANT WATERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of N. B. HILL, Deceased (Additional Parties Plaintiff), v. HILL SPINNING COMPANY, INCORPORATED." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nWe need not consider whether it was permissible for defendant to allege as a counterclaim or defense the same facts it had alleged in its said prior action. Suffice it to say, defendant has not alleged such facts.\nIn a complaint, if plaintiff undertakes to allege two or more separately stated causes of action, each must be complete within itself. It is not permissible to incorporate by reference allegations made in another separately stated cause of action. Heath v. Kirkman, 240 N.C. 303, 82 S.E. 2d 104, and cases cited. A fortiori, it is not permissible for a plaintiff to incorporate by reference allegations made by him in a pleading filed in a separate and independent action. This rule applies equally when a defendant attempts to allege a cause of action as a counterclaim.\nParagraph 3 of defendant\u2019s further answer and defense rests wholly on the allegations in its pleadings in said prior action, which defendant attempted to incorporate by reference. When we exclude these from consideration, said paragraph 3 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Hence, the orders sustaining plaintiffs\u2019 demurrer and motion to strike were proper.\nEven so, analysis of the pleadings in said prior action must be made to determine the validity of defendant\u2019s plea in abatement. In this connection, it is noted that the record on this appeal contains only the pleadings filed by the plaintiff (corporation) in said prior action. The reply affords no assistance since the answer to which it relates does not appear.\nIn its complaint in said prior action, the plaintiff alleged generally that Hill, as president and treasurer of the corporation from 1940 until the action was commenced, had full charge of the corporation\u2019s finances and operations; that he withdrew and fraudulently misapplied to his own use and to the use of his codefendants funds of the corporation in an amount in excess of $100,000.00, all with the knowledge, acquiescence and approval of his codefendants; and that the funds so misappropriated were used in acquiring various properties, title to which was taken in the name of the defendants or one or more of them.\nWhen the plaintiff filed its bill of particulars it thereby confined its case to the items specified therein. Beck v. Bottling Co., 214 N.C. 566, 199 S.E. 924. The bill of particulars, omitting details, specified these alleged withdrawals and misappropriations of the corporation\u2019s funds, to wit:\n1. During 1946-1954, inclusive, Hill traded in cotton futures in the name of the corporation, using the corporation\u2019s credit and funds, realizing a net gain from such trading of $6,584.63. However, Hill caused entries to be made on the corporation\u2019s books reflecting a net loss of $31,523.86. The total of these two items, to wit, $38,108.49, was \u201cfraudulently withdrawn, misapplied and misappropriated by the said defendant (Hill), and through him by his codefendants . . .\u201d\n2. During 1947-1954, inclusive, Hill traded in cotton futures \u201cfor his own personal use and benefit, and for the use and benefit of his co-defendants and others than the plaintiffs,\u201d using the funds and credit of the corporation, and in so doing lost $19,883.91. However, Hill caused book entries to be made showing this to be the corporation\u2019s loss.\nAnd the plaintiff in said prior action, in its bill of particulars, modified its prayer for relief, alleging that the defendants were j ointly and severally liable to it in the amount of $57,992.50.\nThe rules applicable when considering a plea in abatement on the ground that \u201cthere is anoth\u00e9r action pending between the same parties for the same cause\u201d (G.S. 1-127 (3)) are stated, with full citation of authority, by Ervin, J., in McDowell v. Blythe Brothers Co., 236 N.C. 396, 72 S.E. 2d 860, and by Winborne, J. (now C. J.), in Dwiggins v. Bus Co., 230 N.C. 234, 52 S.E. 2d 892.\nDefendant\u2019s plea in abatement is good only if (1) the plaintiffs herein could obtain the same relief by counterclaim in said prior action, and (2) a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in said prior action (defendant herein) would operate as a bar to plaintiffs\u2019 prosecution of this action. Cameron v. Cameron, 235 N.C. 82, 86, 68 S.E. 2d 796, and cases cited.\nThe said prior action was in tort for alleged conversion of the corporation\u2019s funds. Whether Hill\u2019s claim for salary was permissible as a counterclaim therein is governed by the provisions of G.S. 1-137(1). Garrett v. Rose, 236 N.C. 299, 305, 72 S.E. 2d 843. The words and phrases used in G.S. 1-137(1) are defined by Barnhill, J. (later C. J.), in Hancammon v. Carr, 229 N.C. 52, 47 S.E. 2d 614. In Bitting v. Thaxton, 72 N.C. 541, under a somewhat similar factual situation, such a counterclaim was held to be permissible. We need not decide whether the cited case would control decision under the facts here. Compare: Finance Co. v. Holder, 235 N.C. 96, 68 S.E. 2d 794. We may concede, for present purposes, that Hill\u2019s claim for back salary was permissible as a counterclaim in said prior action.\nBe that as it may, we have reached the conclusion that, under applicable decisions of this Court, the said prior action and this action are not for the same cause of action within the meaning of G.S. 1-127 (3). See, also, G.S. 1-133, and McDowell v. Blythe Brothers Co., supra. The basic reason is that a defendant, having a cause of action against the plaintiff, even if permissible as a counterclaim, may elect to plead it as such or institute a separate action thereon unless the issues raised in the prior action, if answered in favor of the plaintiff therein, would preclude and bar the prosecution of the second action. Cameron v. Cameron, supra, and cases cited; Trust Co. v. McKinne, 179 N.C. 328, 102 S.E. 385; Francis v. Edwards, 77 N.C. 271. McIntosh, N.C.P.&P., sec. 468.\nIn Allen v. Salley, 179 N.C. 147, 101 S.E. 545, and similar automobile collision cases, pleas in abatement were allowed. Dwiggins v. Bus Co., supra; Johnson v. Smith, 215 N.C. 322, 1 S.E. 2d 834. Brown, J., in Trust Co. v. McKinne, supra, took occasion to emphasize that in Allen v. Salley, supra, the sole purpose of the litigation was to determine whose negligence caused the collision. Necessarily the issues in the first action would determine the whole controversy between the parties.\nIn Construction Co. v. Ice Co., 190 N.C. 580, 130 S.E. 165, the construction company\u2019s action to recover the balance alleged to be due under a building contract vras abated on account of the pendency of a prior action wherein the ice company sued to recover damages for an alleged breach of the identical building contract. The basis of decision is indicated by this excerpt from the opinion of Stacy, C. J.: \u201cIt will he observed that the parties bottom their respective causes of action on the same contract, each alleging a breach by the other. The two causes of action, therefore, arise out of the same subject-matter; and a recovery by one would necessarily be a bar or offset, pro tanto at least, -to a recovery by the other.\u201d\nIn accord with Construction Co. v. Ice Co., supra: Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 222 N.C. 87, 21 S.E. 2d 893; Garrett v. Kendrick, 201 N.C. 388, 160 S.E. 349; Savage v. McGlawhorn, 199 N.C. 427, 154 S.E. 673; Bell v. Machine Co., 150 N.C. 111, 63 S.E. 680. These cases present factual \u25a0situations relating to a single contract, each party alleging a breach thereof by the other.\nIn short, consideration of decided cases in which a plea in abatement has been allowed discloses the fact that answers to the issues in the prior action perforce would determine the whole controversy between the parties. Cameron v. Cameron, supra.\nApplying these legal principles to the present case, it is noted that the complaint and bill of particulars in said prior action do not relate to Hill\u2019s salary. The allegations thereof negative any idea that any of the alleged withdrawals were or purported to be salary payments. The issues raised concern only the alleged fraudulent withdrawal and misapplication of the corporation\u2019s funds. Nor do plaintiffs herein contend that any part of the funds alleged to have been fraudulently withdrawn and misapplied are'funds to which Hill was entitled as salary. The present action is to recover salary allegedly due but not paid.\nThe issues in said prior action relate directly and solely to the specific matters alleged in the bill of particulars. If answered in favor of the plaintiff (corporation), the issues and the judgment predicated thereon would not determine whether the corporation is indebted to Hill on account of unpaid salary. Therefore, it would not preclude and bar the prosecution of this action. Whether the corporation is indebted to Hill on account of unpaid salary is a separate and distinct matter, the sole issue arising on the pleadings in the present action. The cause of action in the one case is different from the cause of action in the other.\nTaking this view, it is unnecessary to consider what effect, if any, should be given the fact that Mrs. Lydia Hill and N. B. Waters, defendants in said prior action, are not parties to this action.\nIt is noteworthy that both actions are pending in the Superior Court of Sampson County. The prior action, instituted by the corporation, appears first on the docket; a,nd presumably such action will be tried first. As a practical matter, the situation is quite different from that ordinarily presented in connection with a plea in abatement. Where the second action is instituted in a county different from that in which the first action is pending, each party is disposed to compete with the other to determine which case will be first reached for trial. The defendant herein is well ahead. No reason is apparent why it should not proceed with the trial of said prior action.\nFor reasons stated, the three orders signed and entered by the court below are\nAffirmed.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. M. Holland and Butler & Butler for plaintiffs, appellees.", "Jones, Beed & Griffin for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "N. B. HILL (Original Party Plaintiff), and LYDIA WORTHINGTON HILL and BRANT WATERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of N. B. HILL, Deceased (Additional Parties Plaintiff), v. HILL SPINNING COMPANY, INCORPORATED.\n(Filed 10 October, 1956.)\n1. Pleadings \u00a7 3a\u2014\nA party may not by reference incorporate in a pleading allegations made by Mm in a separate and independent action.\n8. Pleadings \u00a7\u00a7 19c, 31\u2014\nWhere a further answer and defense rests wholly on allegations made by the pleader in a prior action, ineffectually sought to be incorporated in the pleading by reference, plaintiff\u2019s demurrer and motion to strike such further answer and defense are proper.\n3. Pleadings \u00a7 27\u2014\nWhere plaintiff files a bill of particulars the case is confined to the items specified therein.\n4. Abatement and Revival \u00a7 8\u2014\nIn order to support a plea in abatement it is not sufficient that the subject matter of the second action may be litigated in the first, but it is also required that judgment in the prior action would operate as a bar to the second. G.S. 1-127 (3).\n5. Same\u2014\nThe pendency of a prior action by a corporation to recover monies allegedly wrongfully misappropriated by its president, without allegation that any of the alleged withdrawals were or purported to be salary payments or funds to which the president was entitled to receive as salary, will not support a plea in bar to a subsequent action instituted by the executors of the deceased president to recover salary allegedly due but not paid, since the issues and judgment in the prior action would not determine whether the corporation was indebted on account of unpaid salary.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., June Term, 1956, of Sampson.\nAction commenced 2 December, 1955, to recover $10,350.00, alleged to be due N. B. Hill, original plaintiff, as unpaid salary for his services as president and treasurer of defendant from 1 November, 1951, through 31 October, 1954. Hill died 23 January, 1956, and his executors, substituted as parties plaintiff, adopted the original complaint.\nA prior action entitled \u201cHill Spinning Company, Incorporated, v. N. B. Hill and wife, Lydia Hill,-and N. B. Waters,\u201d instituted 7 April, 1954, was pending in the Superior Court of Sampson County.\nDefendant herein, answering, denied that it was indebted to Hill on account of unpaid salary, and in addition interposed a further answer and defense containing three numbered paragraphs, viz. :\n1. Herein defendant pleaded said prior pending action, alleged to involve the same parties and subject matter, and moved that this action be abated on account thereof.\n2. Herein defendant pleaded the three year statute of limitations in bar of plaintiffs\u2019 right to recover.\n3. Herein defendant alleged: \u201cThat N. B. Hill, the original plaintiff in the above-entitled action, fraudulently withdrew funds from the defendant and applied the same to his own use and the use of his co-defendants and for the uses and purposes other than corporate use and purpose of the defendant in the manner and under the circumstances set forth in the complaint filed in the action entitled \u2018Hill Spinning Company, Inc. v. N. B. Hill and wife, Lydia Hill, and N. B. Waters,\u2019 and a Bill of Particulars filed in said action, and, for which he was and his Estate is liable to this defendant over and above any and all amounts to which he was entitled to credit and to which his estate is entitled to credit, of $57,992.50, copies of which said complaint, bill of particulars and reply are hereto attached and asked to be taken as a part of this paragraph of the answer.\u201d\nAnd paragraph 3 of defendant\u2019s prayer for relief is as follows: \u201c3. That the defendant have and recover of the estate of N. B. Hill, deceased, the sum of $57,992.50.\u201d\nPlaintiffs challenged in writing said paragraph 3 of defendant\u2019s further answer and defense and said paragraph 3 of its prayer for relief both by demurrer and by motion to strike.\nUpon hearing the court, in separate orders, (1) denied defendant\u2019s plea in abatement, (2) sustained plaintiffs\u2019 demurrer, and (3) allowed plaintiffs\u2019 motion to strike.\nDefendant excepted and appealed, assigning as error the signing and entry of each of said orders.\nB. M. Holland and Butler & Butler for plaintiffs, appellees.\nJones, Beed & Griffin for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0554-01", "first_page_order": 600, "last_page_order": 605 }