Town of Wilson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
Opinion
The petitions for removal, besides showing requisite jurisdictional amounts, assert rights of removal on grounds of diverse citizenship and separable controversies. Brown v. R. R., 204 N. C., 25.
The liabilities of the corporate defendants are predicated upon three separate bonds, one executed by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland to protect the plaintiff against larceny or embezzlement of the town clerk, and the others executed by Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York to insure the faithful performance of duties and accounting on the part of the assistant clerk and cashier.
It is practically conceded that under the decision in Timber Co. v. Ins. Co., 190 N. C., 801, 130 S. E., 864, the motions should have been allowed, unless the allegation of a conspiracy among the individual defendants defeats the rights of removal on grounds of separable controversies. We fail to see wherein this allegation changes the liability of the corporate defendants on their respective bonds, or affects the question of separability, upon which the rights of removal depend.
Eeversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
171 S.E. 68 (Town of Wilson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.