Newberry v. Meadows Fertilizer Co.
A. O. NEWBERRY Et Al. v. MEADOWS FERTILIZER COMPANY Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Connor, J.
Tbe judgment overruling tbe demurrer of tbe defendant, Meadows Fertilizer Company, to tbe complaint in this action, is affirmed on tbe authority of Trust Co. v. Peirce, 195 N. C., 717 , 143 S. E., 524 . Speaking of tbe complaint in tbat case, it is said; “A connected story is told, and a complete picture is painted of a series of transactions, forming one general scheme, and tending to a single end. This saves tbe pleading from tbe challenge of tbe demurrer.” This principle is applicable to tbe allegations of tbe complaint in this action, and for this reason tbe demurrer was properly overruled. Tbe allegations of the *418 complaint are sufficient to show a series of transactions, the result of a general scheme, participated in by the defendants, and resulting in damages which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover of the defendants, jointly and severally.
The judgment affirming the order of the clerk, and denying the petition of the defendants, Davison Chemical Company and C. Wilbur Miller, for the removal of the action from the State to the United States Court, for trial, is affirmed, on the authority of Fenner v. Cedar Works, 191 N. C., 207 , 131 S. E., 625 . In that case it is said: “It is established law that the complaint is the sole basis for determining the nature of the cause of action against the various defendants and that a joint tort action is not separable.” The cause of action alleged in the complaint in this action against both the resident and nonresident defendants is joint and not separable. For this reason, the petition of the nonresident defendants was properly denied.
As we interpret the allegations of the complaint, the cause of action stated therein is a wrongful and unlawful conspiracy entered into by the defendants, resulting in damages which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover of the defendants. The complaint is not subject to demurrer, as contended by the defendant, Meadows Fertilizer Company, nor is the action, removable, as contended by the defendants, Davison Chemical Company and 0. Wilbur Miller. The judgment is Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.