Garrett v. . Garrett

Barnhill, J. It is a generally accepted rule that where two or more persons unite or intentionally act in concert in committing a wrongful act, or participate therein with common intent, they are jointly and severally liable for the resulting injuries. S. v. DeHerrodora, 192 N. C., 749, 136 S. E., 6; Williams v. Lumber Co., 176 N. C., 174, 96 S. E., 950; Trust Co. v. Peirce, 195 N. C., 717, 143 S. E., 524, and cases cited; Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421. See also 52 A. J., 448-50 and notes where copious authorities are cited. *532 “Where there is a common intent to assault and beat, or where the parties are all present at the beating, as principals, either in the first or second degree, or are guilty as abettors by reason of counsel or encouragement given beforehand, each is guilty of the whole, and in such case joint damages would alone be proper.” Smithwick v. Ward, 52 N. C., 64; Meints v. Huntington, 276 Fed., 245, 19 A. L. R., 664. Plaintiff has clearly alleged common purpose and intent and concert of action on the part of defendants in committing an assault upon her. Hence, under the rule stated and the authorities cited, the complaint is not open to attack for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. What plaintiff may be able to prove at the final hearing is another matter with which we are not presently concerned. The judgment below is Affirmed.