Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Co v. Am. Tobacco Co
Decision Date | 16 April 1907 |
Citation | 144 N.C. 352,57 S.E. 5 |
Parties | BLACKWELL'S DURHAM TOBACCO CO. v. AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where, in an action against foreign corporations to enjoin their use of plaintiff's corporate name, etc., plaintiff joined certain resident agents and employes of defendant corporations as parties defendant, alleging that they were personally assisting their codefendants in carrying on business in violation of plaintiff's rights, the fact that such individual defendants were not necessary parties did not entitle defendant corporations to remove the case to the federal court.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent, Dig. vol. 42, Removal of Causes, §§ 71, 95, 97.]
An allegation, in a petition by defendant for the removal of a cause to the federal court, that plaintiff joined certain residents of the state as parties defendant for the fraudulent purpose of defeating the jurisdiction of the federal court, will be disregarded, in the absence of proof of the fraud.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 42, Removal of Causes, § 79.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Moore, Judge.
Action by Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company against the American Tobacco Company and others. From an order refusing to order the removal of the cause to the federal court, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Plaintiff, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company, a domestic corporation, sues the defendants, the American Tobacco Company (of New Jersey), the Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company (of New Jersey), both foreign corporations, and 6. W. Watts, a resident and citizen of Durham, N. C, one of the directors of the American Tobacco Company and a stockholder therein, and C. W. Toms, W. W. Flowers, and D. W. Andrews, residents and citizens of Durham, N. C, "local managers, managing agents and business supervisors of said corporations."
The complaint sets forth:
The plaintiff prayed the defendants, and each of them, be enjoined from using plaintiff's corporate name, etc., and for general relief. Before the time for filing the answer expired, defendants the American Tobacco Company and the Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company filed their petition, accompanied with the bond, as required by the statute, for the removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of North Carolina, setting out their residence, and further: "That the so-called defendants in this suit other than your peti-tioner, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company, including your petitioner the American Tobacco Company itself, are merely nominal defendants; that the said C. W. Toms, W. W. Flowers, and D. W. Andrews sustain only the relations of employes to your petitioner, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company; that they are not, as alleged in the complaint, directly interested in the business of said Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company, your petitioner, conducted in Durham, N. C, or elsewhere; that they are neither officers, directors, nor stockholders in said company, and have no voice in the conduct of its affairs, but are its mere servants, employed by it to render service under the control and immediate directions of its officers and board of directors; that their only interest in or conduct of any business conducted in Durham, N. C. or elsewhere, under the name of 'Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company, ' is as such employes of your petitioner, Blackwell's Durham Tobacco Company, under the control, management, and directions of its board of directors and officers; that this suit is to try the title as between the plaintiff corporation and your petitioner, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Pfeifer & Co v. Israel
-
Ivy River Land & Timber Co v. Am. Ins. Co. Of Newark
...146 N. C. 418, 424, 59 S. E. 1002; Thorn, etc., Co. v. Fuller, 122 U. S. 535, 7 S. Ct. 1265, 30 L. Ed. 1235; Tobacco Co. v. Tobacco Co., 144 N. C. 352, 367, 57 S. E. 5; Bank v. Hester, supra; Hughes' Federal Procedure (2d Ed.) 320, J 120. Applying the foregoing rules, we are constrained to ......
- Crisp v. Champion Fibre Co
-
Hough v. Southern Ry. Co.
...bringing a joint action against the defendants, unless they were wrongfully and illegally joined. Tobacco Co. v. Tobacco Co. (at this term) 57 S.E. 5. When a party is in the assertion of a right in bringing his action, either as to form or substance, the law disregards his motive as unimpor......