Foster v. Morrison
This text of 84 S.E.2d 344 (Foster v. Morrison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 S.E.2d 344, 226 S.C. 149, 1954 S.C. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-morrison-sc-1954.