Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.
This text of 164 S.E. 341 (Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.) 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.
Opinion
The case turns on whether the action is local or transitory in its nature. If local, the defendants are entitled to have the cause moved to Mitchell County for trial as a matter of right. C. S., 463. If transitory, the motion for change of venue was properly overruled. Causey v. Morris, 195 N. C., 532, 142 S. E., 783.
The action 'is for the recovery of damages and appears to be a transitory one. It sounds in neither ejectment nor replevin; nor is it an action for injury to real property, such as contemplated by the statute above cited. Eames v. Armstrong, 136 N. C., 392, 48 S. E., 769; McIntosh, N. C. Practice & Procedure, 258.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
164 S.E. 341, 203 N.C. 12, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-clay-co-v-carolina-china-clay-co-nc-1932.