King v. Robinson Transfer Motor Lines, Inc.

13 S.E.2d 233, 219 N.C. 223, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 293
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 26, 1941
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 13 S.E.2d 233 (King v. Robinson Transfer Motor Lines, Inc.) 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
King v. Robinson Transfer Motor Lines, Inc., 13 S.E.2d 233, 219 N.C. 223, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 293 (N.C. 1941).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The plaintiff and defendant are both from Tennessee. The cause of action arose in that State.

The only service of process is on R. R. Williams, designated as process agent for the State of North Carolina by the defendant in compliance with an Act of Congress, TJ. S. C. A. Title 49, sec. 321, subsec. (c).

*224 Without undertaking to decide whether service of process on such agent would suffice to bring the defendant into the courts of this State on a cause of action arising here, the case of Old Wayne Mut. Life Asso. v. McDonough, 204 U. S., 8, is authority for the position that such attempted service will not suffice on a cause of action arising in another jurisdiction.

Again, in Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U. S., 116, it is held that service of process on the State officer designated by La. Acts, No. 54, for that purpose, was not effective to give the courts of Louisiana jurisdiction of a suit against a foreign corporation doing business in that State as to a cause of action arising in Alabama.

These authorities are decisive of the question presented by the appeal. The plaintiff relies upon the case of Steele v. Tel. Co., 206 N. C., 220, 173 S. E., 583, but the question there decided is not controlling here. That case did not involve service of process on an agent designated by defendant in compliance with an Act of Assembly or an Act of Congress.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Mittelstadt v. Rouzer
328 N.W.2d 467 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1982)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. J. B. Hunt & Sons, Inc.
133 S.E.2d 644 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Babb v. Cordell Industries, Inc.
87 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Davies v. Mahanes
183 F.2d 671 (Fourth Circuit, 1950)
State Ex Rel. Blackledge v. Latourette
205 P.2d 849 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
Motor Lines v. . Transportation Co.
36 S.E.2d 271 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Central Motor Lines, Inc. v. Brooks Transportation Co.
225 N.C. 733 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Madden v. Truckaway Corporation
46 F. Supp. 702 (D. Minnesota, 1942)
Hamilton v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.
18 S.E.2d 367 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.E.2d 233, 219 N.C. 223, 1941 N.C. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-robinson-transfer-motor-lines-inc-nc-1941.