Opinion
Actions by J. C. Spach Wagon Works, Inc., trading as Unique Furniture Makers and by the Globe Parlor Furniture Company against the Union Paste Company. The plaintiffs by oral motion moved to hold the actions in abeyance pending the determination of a similar action in North Carolina. The District Court, Sweeney, C. J., held that since in the North Carolina action there were many defendants whereas in the instant cases defendant was sued alone, the motion would be denied without prejudice to its renewal after a hearing on defendant's contractual relationships had been determined and that defendant's motion for a separate trial of issue of whether there was any contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants would be allowed.
Plaintiff's motion denied and defendant's motion allowed.
Dallace McLennan, Winston-Salem, N. C., Julius C. Smith, C. H. Wharton, Armistead W. Sapp, Beverly C. Moore, McNeill Smith, Richard L. Wharton, all of the firm of Smith, Wharton, Sapp & Moore, Greensboro, N. C., Alfred Gardner, Boston, Mass., for J. C. Spach Wagon Works, Inc.
Dallace McLennan, Winston-Salem, N. C., Armistead W. Sapp, McNeill Smith, Richard L. Wharton, all of the firm of Smith, Wharton, Sapp & Moore, Greensboro, N. C., Alfred Gardner, Boston, Mass., for Globe Parlor Furniture Co.
Joseph W. Worthen, Erland B. Cook, Boston, Mass., Leon F. Sargent, Powers & Hall, Boston, Mass., for defendants.
SWEENEY, Chief Judge.
The plaintiffs' oral motion to hold these actions in abeyance pending the determination of a similar action in North Carolina is denied. In the Carolina action there are many defendants, whereas in these the defendant is sued alone. The motion is therefore denied without prejudice to its renewal after the hearing on the defendant's contractual relationship has been determined.
The defendant's motion for a separate trial of the issue of whether or not there was any contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is allowed under the authority of Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This ought to be a comparatively simple issue to try as distinguished from a trial on the merits.