Frizzell v. Southern Mica Co.

150 S.E. 715, 198 N.C. 128, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 430
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 18, 1929·Published

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

It is alleged in the complaint, and not controverted in the petition for removal that the defendant, Albert Raby, a resident of this State, at the date of plaintiff’s injury, was employed by his co-defendant, a nonresident corporation, as a foreman in its mine in Macon County, North Carolina. Plaintiff alleges that his injuries were caused by the joint tort of the defendant. The allegations of the complaint upon which the cause of action is founded are controverted in the petition for removal. This is not sufficient to sustain the contention that the joinder of the resident defendant with the nonresident was fraudulent. Hurt v. Mfg. Co., ante, 1.

The order denying the prayer for the removal of the action from the State Court to the Federal Court is affirmed upon the authority of Feaster v. McLelland Stores Company, ante, 31; Givens v. Manufacturing Company, 196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681; Swain v. Cooperage Co., 189 N. C., 528, 127 S. E., 538.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frizzell v. Southern Mica Co., 150 S.E. 715, 198 N.C. 128, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 430 (N.C. 1929).

150 S.E. 715 (Frizzell v. Southern Mica Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Swain v. Interstate Cooperage Co.
127 S.E. 538 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Givens v. Savona Manufacturing Co.
145 S.E. 681 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)