Bundy v. . Marsh

EbogdeN, J. The power of the court to appoint a receiver for the estate of a decedent in a pending action was recognized and applied In re Estate of Wright, 200 N. C., 620, 158 S. E., 192. *770 In arriving at a conclusion as to whether a misjoinder of parties and causes of action appears in a given complaint, the entire pleading must be construed as a unit. Interpreting the complaint in the present case, it is obvious that the suit brought by the receiver is in the nature of a creditors’ bill for an accounting, including the recovery of assets of the estate wrongfully disposed of and for assets which should be applied to the claims of creditors. The governing principle is quoted in Chemical Co. v. Floyd, 158 N. C., 455, 74 S. E., 465, as follows: “If the grounds of the bill be not entirely distinct and wholly unconnected; if they arise out of one and the same transaction, or series of transactions, forming-one course of dealing, and all tending to one end — if one connected story can be told of the whole, the objection cannot apply. And it has been held not to apply, when there has been a general right in the plaintiff, covering the whole case, although the rights of the defendants may have been distinct. Nor will it apply when one general right is claimed by the plaintiff, though the individuals made defendants have separate and distinct rights; and in such a case they may all be charged in the same bill, and a demurrer for that cause will not be sustained.” See Bedsole v. Monroe, 40 N. C., 313; Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 225, 50 S. E., 659; S. v. McCanless, 193 N. C., 200, 136 S. E., 371. Many apposite decisions are reviewed in the McCanless case, supra. The cases cited and others of like tenor fully sustain the judgment. Affirmed.