# Southern Railway Co. v. O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc.

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · August 21, 1984 · 70 N.C. App. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588453

## Case

- **Full name:** Southern Railway Company, Ernest L. Williams, Stephen C. Cloer and Richard D. Ussery v. O’boyle Tank Lines, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 21, 1984
- **Citations:** 70 N.C. App. 1; 318 S.E.2d 872; 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3623
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hedrick
- **Judges:** Eagles, Hill, Hedrick
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588453

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that real parties in interest had ratified the action under 17(a
- stating that the purported assignment of individual plaintiffs' personal injury claims to their employer, a co- plaintiff, “was contrary to public policy and ineffective....”
- stating that the purported assignment of individual plaintiffs’ personal injury claims to their employer, a co-plaintiff, “was contrary to public policy and ineffective.... ”
- holding that real parties in interest had ratified the action under 17(a) where they "indicated in writing that they agreed to be made parties, that they ratified and adopted the proceedings up to that point[,] and that they agreed to be bound by the judgment in the case"

## Opinion text

Judge Hedrick
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result of that part of the majority decision that affirms the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the claim of plaintiff, Southern Railway. I dissent, however, from that part of the decision that reverses the judgment directing a verdict for the defendant with respect to the cases of the additional plaintiffs, Williams, Cloer, and Ussery. In my opinion, where the additional plaintiffs have assigned their claims to their employer, and the majority has declared the original plaintiff, employer, not to be a real party in interest, and where the record affirmatively discloses that these employees, additional plaintiffs, have been paid by their employer for the precise claims that they undertook to assign and for which they now seek to recover from the defendant, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for the defendant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588453. Public record. Not legal advice.