MUNCHAK CORP.(DEL.) v. Caldwell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

MUNCHAK CORP.(DEL.) v. Caldwell

214 S.E.2d 194, 25 N.C. App. 652, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2354

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 7, 1975

Docket7518SC96

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 214 S.E.2d 194 (MUNCHAK CORP.(DEL.) v. Caldwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MUNCHAK CORP.(DEL.) v. Caldwell, 214 S.E.2d 194, 25 N.C. App. 652, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2354 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

This case presents a two-fold question: the applicability and the constitutionality of G.S. 55-145 (a) (1), part of North Carolina’s “long-arm” statute, with respect to appellant The Mun-chak Corporation (Georgia). G.S. 55-145(a)(1) provides:

“Jurisdiction over foreign corporations not transacting business in this State.— (a) Every foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this State, whether or not such foreign corporation is transacting or has transacted business in this *654 State and whether or not it is engaged exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, on any cause arising as follows:

(1) Out of any contract made in this State or to be performed in this State. ...”

The record shows, and the trial court found, that the contract which forms the basis of this action was executed in Greensboro and was to be performed substantially in North Carolina. Although defendant Caldwell no longer plays basketball in the State, he has remained a resident of Greensboro and receives remuneration under the contract there. Appellant, as assignee, assumed, with full knowledge of the pendency of this lawsuit, a portion of the obligations under the contract. It stepped into the shoes of the assignor. See Rose v. Vulcan Materials Co., 282 N.C. 643, 194 S.E. 2d 521 (1973) ; cf. Koppers Co., Inc. v. Chemical Corp., 9 N.C. App. 118, 175 S.E. 2d 761 (1970). The facts of this case manifestly meet the statutory criteria for “long-arm” jurisdiction.

Appellant nevertheless contends that the court’s assumption of jurisdiction under G.S. 55-145 (a)(1) violates the constitutional requirement of “certain minimum contacts” with the State enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). We disagree. The North Carolina Supreme Court has said: “It is sufficient for the purposes of due process if the suit is based on a contract which has substantial connection with the forum state.” Byham v. House Corp., 265 N.C. 50, 57, 143 S.E. 2d 225, 232 (1965) ; Citing McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957) ; accord, Goldman v. Parkland, 277 N.C. 223, 176 S.E. 2d 784 (1970) (contract executed and to be performed in state). While the mere execution of a contract in North Carolina has never been held to be such a connection, we believe that the execution, anticipated performance, and continuing part performance of the contract in Greensboro constitute substantial in-state activity. North Carolina’s courts have in personam jurisdiction over Munchak (Georgia). The order of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

This case presents a two-fold question: the applicability and the constitutionality of G.S. 55-145 (a) (1), part of North Carolina’s “long-arm” statute, with respect to appellant The Mun-chak Corporation (Georgia). G.S. 55-145(a)(1) provides:

“Jurisdiction over foreign corporations not transacting business in this State.— (a) Every foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this State, whether or not such foreign corporation is transacting or has transacted business in this *654 State and whether or not it is engaged exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, on any cause arising as follows:

(1) Out of any contract made in this State or to be performed in this State. ...”

The record shows, and the trial court found, that the contract which forms the basis of this action was executed in Greensboro and was to be performed substantially in North Carolina. Although defendant Caldwell no longer plays basketball in the State, he has remained a resident of Greensboro and receives remuneration under the contract there. Appellant, as assignee, assumed, with full knowledge of the pendency of this lawsuit, a portion of the obligations under the contract. It stepped into the shoes of the assignor. See Rose v. Vulcan Materials Co., 282 N.C. 643, 194 S.E. 2d 521 (1973) ; cf. Koppers Co., Inc. v. Chemical Corp., 9 N.C. App. 118, 175 S.E. 2d 761 (1970). The facts of this case manifestly meet the statutory criteria for “long-arm” jurisdiction.

Appellant nevertheless contends that the court’s assumption of jurisdiction under G.S. 55-145 (a)(1) violates the constitutional requirement of “certain minimum contacts” with the State enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). We disagree. The North Carolina Supreme Court has said: “It is sufficient for the purposes of due process if the suit is based on a contract which has substantial connection with the forum state.” Byham v. House Corp., 265 N.C. 50, 57, 143 S.E. 2d 225, 232 (1965) ; Citing McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957) ; accord, Goldman v. Parkland, 277 N.C. 223, 176 S.E. 2d 784 (1970) (contract executed and to be performed in state). While the mere execution of a contract in North Carolina has never been held to be such a connection, we believe that the execution, anticipated performance, and continuing part performance of the contract in Greensboro constitute substantial in-state activity. North Carolina’s courts have in personam jurisdiction over Munchak (Georgia). The order of the trial court is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 S.E.2d 194, 25 N.C. App. 652, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munchak-corpdel-v-caldwell-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack