
    CAROL POWELL v. J. H. INGRAM, JR., BERNARD CARROLL and WILLIS V. SANDERS; and CHARLES STANCELL v. J. H. INGRAM, JR., BERNARD CARROLL and WILLIS V. SANDERS.
    (Filed 2 February, 1950.)
    Torts § 5: Judgments § 32—
    Where plaintiffs seek no relief from a party joined as a defendant by the original defendants for the purpose of contribution under G.S. 1-240, the liability of such defendant to plaintiffs is not at issue on the trial, and judgment for the original defendants does not preclude plaintiffs from later suing the party so joined.
    Appeal by plaintiffs from Nimochs, J., and a jury, at the May Term, 1949, of DURHAM.
    The plaintiffs brought separate actions against Ingram and Carroll for damages for personal injuries suffered in a collision involving three motor vehicles, to wit: passenger automobiles driven by Ingram and Carroll, and a truck operated by Sanders. Upon application of Ingram and Carroll, Sanders was made a party defendant in each case for the purpose of contribution under G.S. 1-240. The plaintiffs sought no relief, however, as against Sanders. By consent, of all parties, the two actions were consolidated for trial and judgment, and appropriate issues were submitted to tbe jury, who found that tbe plaintiffs were not injured by actionable negligence on tbe part of Ingram and Carroll, or of either of them. Judgment was entered on tbe verdict exonerating Ingram and Carroll, and tbe plaintiffs excepted and appealed, assigning errors.
    
      John T. Manning and Egbert L. Haywood for plaintiffs, appellants.
    
    
      Spears & Hall for the defendant, John T. Ingram, Jr., appellee.
    
    
      T. Lacy Williams and Fuller, Reade, Umstead & Fuller for defendant, Bernard Carroll, appellee.
    
   Per Curiam.

A careful consideration of tbe record and case on appeal leaves us with tbe firm conviction that tbe trial in tbe court below conformed to all applicable legal principles. As no error in law appears, tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld. Tbe question of tbe liability of Sanders to tbe plaintiffs was not at issue on tbe trial, and in consequence tbe judgment does not preclude tbe plaintiffs from suing Sanders in case they desire to do so.

No error.  