Westarc Leasing Corp. v. Capital Sign Service, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Westarc Leasing Corp. v. Capital Sign Service, Inc.

151 S.E.2d 204, 268 N.C. 601, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1269

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 30, 1966

Docket541

StatusPublished

This text of 151 S.E.2d 204 (Westarc Leasing Corp. v. Capital Sign Service, 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

Westarc Leasing Corp. v. Capital Sign Service, Inc., 151 S.E.2d 204, 268 N.C. 601, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1269 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

*603 Pless, J.

While G.S. 55-154 provides that no undomesticated foreign corporation transacting business in this State shall be permitted to maintain any action or proceeding in any court of this State, etc., the lower court ruled correctly that the plaintiff was protected by G.S. 55-131 which provides that a foreign corporation shall not be considered to be transacting business in this State in maintaining or defending any action or suit, etc.

However, the court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings. In the defendants’ further answer which, under the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto is deemed admitted, they alleged that the property leased was defective, that the plaintiff had been notified and that upon the representations that the equipment would be put in good working condition they made payments to the plaintiff in reliance thereon and have further expended $1,000 in attempting to get said equipment to operate.

These allegations raise questions that can be determined only by trial on the merits and the action of the court in awarding judgment on the pleadings is hereby

Reversed.

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

*603 Pless, J.

While G.S. 55-154 provides that no undomesticated foreign corporation transacting business in this State shall be permitted to maintain any action or proceeding in any court of this State, etc., the lower court ruled correctly that the plaintiff was protected by G.S. 55-131 which provides that a foreign corporation shall not be considered to be transacting business in this State in maintaining or defending any action or suit, etc.

However, the court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings. In the defendants’ further answer which, under the plaintiff’s demurrer thereto is deemed admitted, they alleged that the property leased was defective, that the plaintiff had been notified and that upon the representations that the equipment would be put in good working condition they made payments to the plaintiff in reliance thereon and have further expended $1,000 in attempting to get said equipment to operate.

These allegations raise questions that can be determined only by trial on the merits and the action of the court in awarding judgment on the pleadings is hereby

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 S.E.2d 204, 268 N.C. 601, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westarc-leasing-corp-v-capital-sign-service-inc-nc-1966.