LaNeve v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Allison v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (4th Cir. 1938)
- Kelly v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (N.C. 1936)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The petition for removal, besides showing the presence of the requisite jurisdictional amount, asserts a right of removal on the grounds of diverse citizenship, and alleges (1) fraudulent joinder of resident defendants, and (2) separable controversy.
The trial court held that the case was controlled by the line of decisions of which 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, may be cited as fairly illustrative; while the appellant contends that the principles announced in 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, are more nearly applicable.
*282 ’Without “threshing oyer old straw,” suffice it to say, appellant has not overcome the presumption against error. Bailey v. McKay, 198 N. C., 638, 152 S. E., 893. To prevail on appeal, he who alleges error must successfully handle the laboring oar. Poindexter v. R. R., 201 N. C., 833, 160 S. E., 767; Jackson v. Bell, 201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.