General Steel Tank Company, Inc. v. Mrs. Charlie W. Conner and Maxie Conner as Co-Administrators of Charlie W. Conner

Fifth Circuit

General Steel Tank Company, Inc. v. Mrs. Charlie W. Conner and Maxie Conner as Co-Administrators of Charlie W. Conner

387 F.2d 372, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4056

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 21, 1967

Docket24898_1

StatusPublished

This text of 387 F.2d 372 (General Steel Tank Company, Inc. v. Mrs. Charlie W. Conner and Maxie Conner as Co-Administrators of Charlie W. Conner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

General Steel Tank Company, Inc. v. Mrs. Charlie W. Conner and Maxie Conner as Co-Administrators of Charlie W. Conner, 387 F.2d 372, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4056 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellees, who are residents of Georgia, qualified in Georgia as administrators of the estate of Charlie W. Conner and thereafter filed this suit *373 against appellant, a North Carolina corporation, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. As Mr. Conner’s death resulted from a collision in North Carolina, appellees’ cause of action arose under North Carolina’s wrongful death statute. On appeal, it is urged that the district court erred in overruling defendant-appellant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The question presented is whether North Carolina’s wrongful death statute requires that suit be brought by an administrator appointed by a North Carolina court.

In this diversity case, we apply Georgia’s conflict-of-laws rule. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 1941, 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477. Under Georgia law, the substantive aspects of this appeal are governed by North Carolina law. Selma R. & D. R. Co. v. Lacey, 1873, 49 Ga. 106. We shall assume that the capacity to sue under wrongful death statutes is a matter of substance and thus controlled by North Carolina law. See, e. g., Betts v. Southern Ry. Co., 4th Cir. 1934, 71 F.2d 787. The question remains whether North Carolina law bars all suits by foreign administrators.

Although in King v. Cooper Motor Lines, D. Maryland 1956, 142 F.Supp. 405, the district court refused to allow a Maryland administrator to sue under the North Carolina statute in a Maryland court, we find that the North Carolina cases require a locally appointed administrator only when suit is filed in a North Carolina court. See, e. g., Monfils v. Hazlewood, 1940, 218 N.C. 215, 10 S.E.2d 673. That the Supreme Court of North Carolina has never considered the requirement of a local administrator to have extra-territorial effect is perhaps best illustrated by Harrill v. South Carolina & Georgia Extension Ry. Co., 1903, 132 N.C. 655, 44 S.E. 109. In that case, the court held that the South Carolina wrongful death statute, which is much the same as the North Carolina statute, does not preclude an action by a North Carolina administrator in a North Carolina court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellees, who are residents of Georgia, qualified in Georgia as administrators of the estate of Charlie W. Conner and thereafter filed this suit *373 against appellant, a North Carolina corporation, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. As Mr. Conner’s death resulted from a collision in North Carolina, appellees’ cause of action arose under North Carolina’s wrongful death statute. On appeal, it is urged that the district court erred in overruling defendant-appellant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The question presented is whether North Carolina’s wrongful death statute requires that suit be brought by an administrator appointed by a North Carolina court.

In this diversity case, we apply Georgia’s conflict-of-laws rule. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 1941, 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477. Under Georgia law, the substantive aspects of this appeal are governed by North Carolina law. Selma R. & D. R. Co. v. Lacey, 1873, 49 Ga. 106. We shall assume that the capacity to sue under wrongful death statutes is a matter of substance and thus controlled by North Carolina law. See, e. g., Betts v. Southern Ry. Co., 4th Cir. 1934, 71 F.2d 787. The question remains whether North Carolina law bars all suits by foreign administrators.

Although in King v. Cooper Motor Lines, D. Maryland 1956, 142 F.Supp. 405, the district court refused to allow a Maryland administrator to sue under the North Carolina statute in a Maryland court, we find that the North Carolina cases require a locally appointed administrator only when suit is filed in a North Carolina court. See, e. g., Monfils v. Hazlewood, 1940, 218 N.C. 215, 10 S.E.2d 673. That the Supreme Court of North Carolina has never considered the requirement of a local administrator to have extra-territorial effect is perhaps best illustrated by Harrill v. South Carolina & Georgia Extension Ry. Co., 1903, 132 N.C. 655, 44 S.E. 109. In that case, the court held that the South Carolina wrongful death statute, which is much the same as the North Carolina statute, does not preclude an action by a North Carolina administrator in a North Carolina court.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 372, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-steel-tank-company-inc-v-mrs-charlie-w-conner-and-maxie-conner-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack