Foster v. Morrison

84 S.E.2d 344, 226 S.C. 149, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 88
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 1, 1954·No. 16922·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinions

Taylor, Justice.

Where a foreign corporation has complied with the statutory requirements as to the appointment of a process agent, the Supreme Court of the United States has clearly indicated a leaning toward the construction of such statutes where possible, that would exclude from their operation causes of action not arising in the business done by them in the state. Missouri Pac. Railroad Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co., 257 U. S. 533, 42 S. Ct. 210, 66 L. Ed. 354; Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Const. Co., 257 U. S. 213, 42 S. Ct. 84, 66 L. Ed. 201; Chipman v. Thomas B. Jeffrey Co., 251 U. S. 373, 40 S. Ct. 172, 64 L. Ed. 314.

We, therefore, would affirm and report the Order appealed from. Let the Order be reported.

Legge, J., and Bruce Littlejohn, A. A. J., concur. Oxner, J., concurs in result. Stukes, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Foster v. Morrison, 84 S.E.2d 344, 226 S.C. 149, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 88 (S.C. 1954).

84 S.E.2d 344 (Foster v. Morrison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AG
481 F. Supp. 868 (D. South Carolina, 1979)
Clark v. Babbitt Brothers, Inc.
196 S.E.2d 120 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1973)
Szantay v. Beech Aircraft Corporation
237 F. Supp. 393 (E.D. South Carolina, 1965)
Raggio v. Woodman of the World Life Insurance Society
90 S.E.2d 212 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1955)
Foster v. Morrison
84 S.E.2d 344 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1954)