Burleson v. Snipes
| Decision Date | 17 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 247. |
| Citation | 190 S.E. 220,211 N.C. 396 |
| Parties | BURLESON v. SNIPES et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Avery County; J. A. Rosseau, Judge.
Action by Robert S. Burleson against J. F. Snipes, trading as the J F. Snipes Motor Company, and the C. I. T. Corporation. From a judgment granting last-named defendant's petition for removal of the cause to the federal court, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Petition by defendant C. I. T. Corporation, a West Virginia corporation, for removal of the cause of action as to it to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, on the ground of separable controversy involving more than $3,000, heard upon appeal from the clerk, who had denied removal. Proper bond was filed.
The judge below reversed the ruling of the clerk, adjudging that petitioner was entitled to remove.
Plaintiff appealed.
Right of removal of cause from state court to federal court on ground of separable controversy must be determined by facts set forth in complaint.
J. V Bowers and Charles Hughes, both of Newland, for appellant.
Harkins Van Winkle & Walton, of Asheville, for appellees.
It has been uniformly held by this court that the right of removal of a cause from a state court to the United States court on the ground of separable controversy must be determined by the facts set forth in the complaint. Ivy River Land & Timber Co. v. Ins. Co., 190 N.C. 801, 130 S.E. 864; Hughes v. R. R., 210 N.C. 730, 188 S.E. 324; Rucker v Snider Bros., 210 N.C. 777, 188 S.E. 405. In the instant case the complaint alleges a cause of action against the resident defendant Snipes and the petitioner for damages for failure to surrender an automobile title certificate. The plaintiff alleges that this certificate had been attached to a title retention contract given by him to defendant Snipes to secure the balance due upon the purchase of a motortruck and that the defendant Snipes sold and assigned said title retention contract, with the certificate attached, to the defendant C. I. T. Corporation; and that upon payment of the balance due on his debt to the C. I. T. Corporation the latter wrongfully failed and refused to surrender to the plaintiff the title certificate, causing substantial damage to him.
It is manifest that plaintiff has alleged as to the petitioner a cause of action independent and distinct from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial