Frizzell v. Southern Mica Co.

150 S.E. 715, 198 N.C. 128, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 430
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 18, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 715 (Frizzell v. Southern Mica Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 S.E. 715, 198 N.C. 128, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frizzell-v-southern-mica-co-nc-1929.