Allred v. Trexler Lumber Co., 140 S.E. 157 (N.C. 1927). · Go Syfert
Allred v. Trexler Lumber Co., 140 S.E. 157 (N.C. 1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
194 N.C. at 547 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Key ex rel. Key v. Home Chair Co., 156 S.E. 135 (N.C. 1930).published
    In Snipes v. Monds, 190 N. C., at p. 191, it is said: “Even after answering in the trial court, or in this Court, a defendant may demur ore tenus, or the Court may raise the question ex mero motu that the complaint does not state a cause o…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J. F. ALLRED Et Ux.
v.
TREXLER LUMBER COMPANY Et Al.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov 16, 1927.
Published opinion
140 S.E. 157
1927 N.C. LEXIS 147
U. I. Spence for plaintiffs. , Fuller, Reade & Fuller for defendant, Trexler Lumber Company.
BeogdeN, Stacy.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Stacy, C. J.

Tbe plaintiffs, residents of Moore County, North Carolina, sue tbe Trexler Lumber Company, a corporation, citizen and resident of tbe State of Pennsylvania, for damages arising ex contractu, and at tbe same time seek to enjoin tbe foreclosure of a deed of trust given to secure tbe payment of certain promissory notes executed by plaintiffs to tbe corporate defendant.

Victor S. Bryant, a resident of Durham, N. C., was named as trustee in tbe deed of trust, tbe foreclosure of which is sought to be enjoined, and bis executrix, upon whom “all tbe title, rights, powers and duties of such trustee” were cast (C. S., 2578) at bis death, is joined purely as a nominal defendant, and no separate cause of action is alleged or relief demanded as against her. Her interest, therefore, is not sufficient to defeat a removal of tbe cause of action to tbe Federal Court for trial. Morganton v. Hutton, 187 N. C., 736, 122 S. E., 842.

Where it appears that tbe real controversy is between citizens of different States, tbe presence of mere formal parties, such as executors of a deceased trustee, even though citizens of tbe same State with tbe plaintiff, will not defeat or oust tbe jurisdiction of tbe Federal Court. Walden v. Skinner, 101 U. S., 577; Black’s Dillon on Removal of Causes, chapter 8, sec. 85.

This was tbe bolding of tbe trial court, and we find no error in tbe ruling.

Affirmed.

BeogdeN, J., took no part in tbe consideration or decision of this case.