Four County Agricultural Credit Corp. v. Satterfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Four County Agricultural Credit Corp. v. Satterfield

10 S.E.2d 914, 218 N.C. 298, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 144

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 16, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 10 S.E.2d 914 (Four County Agricultural Credit Corp. v. Satterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Four County Agricultural Credit Corp. v. Satterfield, 10 S.E.2d 914, 218 N.C. 298, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 144 (N.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Seawell, J.

The objection to the jurisdiction, since the defect does not appear on the face of the complaint (O. S., 511), but concerns the issuing and service of summons (chapter 81, Public Laws 1939), should have been made by motion to dismiss, under a special appearance. Treated as such (compare Smith v. Haughton, 206 N. C., 587, 174 S. E., 506), the plea is not good, since the allegations are sufficient to support an action for conversion of the property. But defendants did not protect themselves by a special appearance or confine the demurrer to an objection to the jurisdiction. They demurred also to the sufficiency of the complaint and the joinder of parties. Filing this demurrer had the effect of entering a general appearance and waiving any objection to the jurisdiction arising out of the issue and service of summons. Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175.

*300 Tbe demurrer to tbe complaint as not stating a cause of action cannot be sustained. Tbe particular objection based on defendants’ immunity as public warehousemen bas been decided adversely to them by tbis Court in White v. Boyd, 124 N. C., 77, 32 S. E., 387. See, also, Burwell v. Cooperative Co., 172 N. C., 79, 89 S. E., 1064; Nowell v. Basnight, 185 N. C., 142, 116 S. E., 87; Roebuck v. Short, 196 N. C., 61, 144 S. E., 515; Furniture Co. v. Clark, 191 N. C., 369, 131 S. E., 567. From these cases it may be inferred that tbe public laws regulating ware-housemen do not require them to receive and sell mortgaged property without tbe knowledge and consent of tbe mortgagee, and do not liquidate their common law liability for tbe conversion.

Going no further than tbe complaint, we cannot see that defendants are not proper parties to sue for relief. In “following tbe tobacco,” plaintiff is not required to encircle tbe globe, but may make tbe first port of entry where both liability and responsibility may be found. Goodrum v. Gin Co., 211 N. C., 737, 191 S. E., 25; Womble v. Leach, 83 N. C., 84.

Tbe judgment overruling tbe demurrer is

Affirmed.

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

Seawell, J.

The objection to the jurisdiction, since the defect does not appear on the face of the complaint (O. S., 511), but concerns the issuing and service of summons (chapter 81, Public Laws 1939), should have been made by motion to dismiss, under a special appearance. Treated as such (compare Smith v. Haughton, 206 N. C., 587, 174 S. E., 506), the plea is not good, since the allegations are sufficient to support an action for conversion of the property. But defendants did not protect themselves by a special appearance or confine the demurrer to an objection to the jurisdiction. They demurred also to the sufficiency of the complaint and the joinder of parties. Filing this demurrer had the effect of entering a general appearance and waiving any objection to the jurisdiction arising out of the issue and service of summons. Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175.

*300 Tbe demurrer to tbe complaint as not stating a cause of action cannot be sustained. Tbe particular objection based on defendants’ immunity as public warehousemen bas been decided adversely to them by tbis Court in White v. Boyd, 124 N. C., 77, 32 S. E., 387. See, also, Burwell v. Cooperative Co., 172 N. C., 79, 89 S. E., 1064; Nowell v. Basnight, 185 N. C., 142, 116 S. E., 87; Roebuck v. Short, 196 N. C., 61, 144 S. E., 515; Furniture Co. v. Clark, 191 N. C., 369, 131 S. E., 567. From these cases it may be inferred that tbe public laws regulating ware-housemen do not require them to receive and sell mortgaged property without tbe knowledge and consent of tbe mortgagee, and do not liquidate their common law liability for tbe conversion.

Going no further than tbe complaint, we cannot see that defendants are not proper parties to sue for relief. In “following tbe tobacco,” plaintiff is not required to encircle tbe globe, but may make tbe first port of entry where both liability and responsibility may be found. Goodrum v. Gin Co., 211 N. C., 737, 191 S. E., 25; Womble v. Leach, 83 N. C., 84.

Tbe judgment overruling tbe demurrer is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E.2d 914, 218 N.C. 298, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/four-county-agricultural-credit-corp-v-satterfield-nc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack