State ex rel. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Benfield

145 S.E.2d 912, 266 N.C. 342, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1340
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 14, 1966
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 145 S.E.2d 912 (State ex rel. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Benfield) 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
State ex rel. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Benfield, 145 S.E.2d 912, 266 N.C. 342, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1340 (N.C. 1966).

Opinion

Bobbitt, J.

G.S. 55-154, in pertinent part, provides: “(a) No foréign corporation transacting business in this State without permission obtained through a certificate of authority under this chapter or through domestication under prior acts shall be permitted to maintain any action or proceeding in any court of this State unless such corporation shall have obtained a certificate of authority prior to trial; ... An issue arising under this subsection must be raised by motion and determined by the trial judge prior to trial.”

The issue raised by defendants’ motions to dismiss should have been determined by the trial judge prior to trial. These motions challenged the authority of the court to proceed with a trial of the cause on its merits.

What is denominated “Finding of Fact” No. 3 is actually a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Mills, Inc. v. Transit Co., 265 N.C. 61, 73, 143 S.E. 2d 235. Under authority of the cited case, which was decided July 23, 1965, defendants confess error and concede the cause must be remanded for specific findings as to facts pertinent to whether plaintiff “has transacted business in the State of North Carolina.” Defendants are well advised.

Absent specific findings of fact supported by evidence and justifying the conclusion of law embodied in “Finding of Fact” No. 3, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and is therefore vacated. The cause is remanded for a de novo hearing and determination of defendants’ said motions to dismiss in accordance with requirements stated herein.

There has been no determination of any of the issues raised by the pleadings relating to the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action.

Error and remanded.

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

Related

Harold Lang Jewelers, Inc. v. Johnson
576 S.E.2d 360 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
State v. Sanders
435 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
State v. Saults
261 S.E.2d 839 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
Peoples v. Peoples
179 S.E.2d 138 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 S.E.2d 912, 266 N.C. 342, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-glamorgan-pipe-foundry-co-v-benfield-nc-1966.