Tron v. . Refining Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Tron v. . Refining Co.

155 S.E. 924, 199 N.C. 816, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 282

DecidedDecember 3, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.E. 924 (Tron v. . Refining 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

Tron v. . Refining Co., 155 S.E. 924, 199 N.C. 816, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 282 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action for wrongful death brought against Sinclair Refining Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Maine, and B. D. Williams and R. A. Self, citizens and residents of Catawba County, N.C. *Page 817

Motion by nonresident, corporate defendant, to remove cause to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina for trial. Motion denied, and movant appeals. The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the ground of diverse citizenship, and alleges that the resident defendants have been fraudulently joined to prevent such removal.

No new question of law is presented by the appeal. The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which 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, may be cited as fairly illustrative, while the appellant contends that the principles announced in 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, are more nearly applicable. No error in the ruling of the trial court has been shown.

Affirmed.

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

Civil action for wrongful death brought against Sinclair Refining Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Maine, and B. D. Williams and R. A. Self, citizens and residents of Catawba County, N.C. *Page 817

Motion by nonresident, corporate defendant, to remove cause to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina for trial. Motion denied, and movant appeals. The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the ground of diverse citizenship, and alleges that the resident defendants have been fraudulently joined to prevent such removal.

No new question of law is presented by the appeal. The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which 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, may be cited as fairly illustrative, while the appellant contends that the principles announced in 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, are more nearly applicable. No error in the ruling of the trial court has been shown.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 924, 199 N.C. 816, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tron-v-refining-co-nc-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack