# Town of Wilson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · October 11, 1933 · 205 N.C. 262

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3645257

## Case

- **Full name:** Town of Wilson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 11, 1933
- **Citations:** 205 N.C. 262; 171 S.E. 68; 1933 N.C. LEXIS 527
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Stacy
- **Judges:** Stacy
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3645257

## Opinion text

Stacy, C. J.
The petitions for removal, besides showing requisite jurisdictional amounts, assert rights of removal on grounds of diverse citizenship and separable controversies.
Brown v. R. R.,
204 N. C., 25 .
The liabilities of the corporate defendants are predicated upon three separate bonds, one executed by the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland to protect the plaintiff against larceny or embezzlement of the town clerk, and the others executed by Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York to insure the faithful performance of duties and accounting on the part of the assistant clerk and cashier.
It is practically conceded that under the decision in
Timber Co. v. Ins. Co.,
190 N. C., 801 , 130 S. E., 864 , the motions should have been allowed, unless the allegation of a conspiracy among the individual defendants defeats the rights of removal on grounds of separable controversies. We fail to see wherein this allegation changes the liability of the corporate defendants on their respective bonds, or affects the question of separability, upon which the rights of removal depend.
Eeversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3645257. Public record. Not legal advice.