¶1 The plaintiff had a right to bring his action upon each distinct item or transaction. If, however, he should bring more actions than were necessary to avail himself of the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace the Court would, to prevent oppression and the unnecessary burden of costs, require him to consolidate his actions. The leading case upon this subject is Caldwell v. Beatty, 69 N. C., 365.
¶2 If, however, the plaintiff had rendered his account to defendants, covering a statement of all the items contracted at different dates, and no objection had been made thereto by defendants within a reasonable time, it would have then become an account stated, and he could not thereafter have separated the items so as to sue on them before a Justice of the Peace. Marks v. Ballance, 113 N. C., 28.
¶3 TThere a single contract is made for furnishing articles at fixed prices the plaintiff will not be permitted to “split up ” his account. McPhail v. Johnson, 109 N. C., 571. There is a suggestion in the brief of defendants’ counsel that the *530 case on appeal and the record will show a single contract by one of the defendants for the payment of the whole account, by means of which it is contended that this case is brought under the principle last laid down, but we find nothing in the “case” or in the record to warrant this contention. Reversed.