LaNeve v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

176 S.E. 560, 207 N.C. 281, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 447

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 31, 1934
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the grounds of diverse citizenship, and alleges (1) fraudulent joinder of resident defendants, and (2) separable controversy.

The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which Cox v. Lumber Co., 193 N. C., 28, 136 S. E., 254, Johnson v. Lumber Co., 189 N. C., 81, 126 S. E., 165, and Rea v. Mirror Co., 158 N. C., 24, 73 S. E., 116, may be cited as fairly illustrative; while the appellant contends that the principles announced in Givens v. Mfg. Co., 196 N. C., 377, 145 S. E., 681, and Crisp v. Fibre Co., 193 N. C., 77, 136 S. E., 238, are more nearly applicable.

’Without “threshing oyer old straw,” suffice it to say, appellant has not overcome the presumption against error. Bailey v. McKay, 198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893. To prevail on appeal, he who alleges error must successfully handle the laboring oar. Poindexter v. R. R., 201 N. C., 833, 160 S. E., 767; Jackson v. Bell, 201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926.

Affirmed.