Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.

188 S.E. 405, 210 N.C. 777, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 223
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 25, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 188 S.E. 405 (Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.) 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
Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc., 188 S.E. 405, 210 N.C. 777, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 223 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff alleged a personal injury caused by the joint negligence of each of the defendants in the operation of motor vehicles on the highway, setting out the facts and claiming damages in the sum of ten thousand dollars. The plaintiff and the defendants Snider Brothers, Inc., and J. W. Kluttz, are residents of North Carolina, and the appellant is a Georgia corporation.

The complaint alleges that the truck of defendant Snider Brothers, Inc., and that of appellant collided, due to negligence of both, and that as proximate result of joint and concurring negligence of both, plaintiff was struck and injured.

Upon a petition for removal to the Federal Court on the ground of separable controversy, the plaintiff is entitled to have her cause of action considered as stated in her complaint, and the motion must be determined by the facts therein set forth. Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., *778 102; Crisp v. Fibre Co., 193 N. C., 77; Brown v. R. R., 204 N. C., 25; Trust Co. v. R. R., 209 N. C., 304; R. R. v. Dixon, 179 U. S., 131.

Tbe facts alleged in tbe instant case are distinguishable from those on which the decision in Brown v. R. R., supra, was based.

It is obvious that plaintiff has here alleged a cause of action based upon the joint and concurring negligence of both resident and nonresident tort-feasors, at the same time and place, and that the complaint does not show a separable controversy.

The petition for removal was properly denied.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Smith v. McDowell Furniture Co.
16 S.E.2d 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Lackey v. Southern Railway Co.
13 S.E.2d 234 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Cunningham Ex Rel. Cunningham v. Haynes
199 S.E. 627 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Hall v. Kentucky-Virginia Stone Co.
193 S.E. 150 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Rucker v. . Snider Brothers, Inc.
191 S.E. 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Burleson v. . Snipes
190 S.E. 220 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 S.E. 405, 210 N.C. 777, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-snider-brothers-inc-nc-1936.