Bigham v. Foor
| Decision Date | 20 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 464.,464. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 548 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BIGHAM. v. FOOR et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Moore, Judge.
Action by J. C. Bigham against Mrs. C. C. Foor and another. From order denying motion to dismiss for want of proper service, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury, caused by a collision in the city of Charlotte July 10, 1929, between a truck driven by the plaintiff and Mrs. C. C. Foor's automobile driven at the time by Oren D. Hall.
Service of summons was had upon the commissioner of revenue of North Carolina, as agent of the alleged nonresident defendant, Mrs. C. C. Foor, under chapter 75, Public Laws 1929. The defendant entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss for want of proper service, on the ground that she was a resident of the state of North Carolina at the time of the collision and therefore not amenable to process under the act of 1929.
The judge found that the defendant Mrs. C. C. Foor was a resident of South Carolina; that she and her husband were domiciled in Charleston; that they came to North Carolina for a temporary sojourn during the summer of 1929 and returned to their home immediately thereafter; that the defendant's automobile was being operated at the time, and during the whole time she was in the state, under licenses, as evidenced by plates on the car, of the city of Charleston and state of South Carolina; that no North Carolina license was secured by the defendant for operating her automobile over the highways of this state during her stay here; and that in law and in fact the defendant was a nonresident of the state at the time of the collision. Whereupon the motion to dismiss was denied. Defendant appeals, assigning error.
Taliaferro & Clarkson, of Charlotte, for appellants.
Walter Clark and Stewart & Bobbitt, all of Charlotte, for appellee.
Upon the facts found by the trial court, which are conclusive on appeal as they are supported by competent evidence (Hennis v. Hennis, 180 N. C. 606, 105 S. E. 274), there was no error in holding that the defendant was a nonresident of the state within the meaning of chapter 75, Public Laws 1929, at the time of the collision between her automobile and the truck driven by the plaintiff. Brann v. Hanes, 194 N. C. 571, 140 S. E. 292; Gower v. Carter, 195 N. C. 697, 143 S. E. 513; Gower v. Carter, 194 N. C. 293, 139 S. E. 604; Roanoke Rapids v. Patterson, 184 N. C. 135, 113 S. E. 603; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N. C. 115.
The constitutionality of chapter 75, Public Laws 1929, was upheld in Ashley v. Brown, 198 N. C. 369, 151 S. E. 725.
The case of White v. Lumber Co., 199 N. C. 410, 154 S. E. 620, is distinguishable and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing v. Thompson, 528
...upheld in Ashley v. Brown, 198 N.C. 369, 151 S.E. 725, which has been referred to, or cited with approval in these cases: Bigham v. Foor, 201 N.C. 14, 158 S.E. 548; Smith v. Haughton, 206 N.C. 587, 174 S.E. 506; Dowling v. Winters, 208 N.C. 521, 181 S.E. 751; Wynn v. Robinson, 216 N.C. 347,......
-
Tinajero v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc.
...of N.C., LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 195 N.C.App. 378, 386, 673 S.E.2d 137, 143 (2009) (quoting Bigham v. Foor, 201 N.C. 14, 15, 158 S.E. 548, 549 (1931)). Although defendants urge us to adopt a reading of Timmons by which Justice Billings' dissent in that case has been adop......
-
Total Renal Care v. Dept. of Health
...same footing as those in which fuller citations of authorities are made and more extended opinions are written." Bigham v. Foor, 201 N.C. 14, 15, 158 S.E. 548, 549 (1931) (citations Moreover, we discern no relevant distinctions between the facts of Mooresville and the facts of the case at b......
-
Carolina Plywood Distributors, Inc. v. McAndrews
...papers in the cause.' The constitutionality of this statute was upheld in Ashley v. Brown, 198 N.C. 369, 151 S.E. 725; Bigham v. Foor, 201 N.C. 14, 158 S.E. 548; and Davis v. Martini, 233 N.C. 351, 64 S.E.2d 1. The provisions thereof are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly ......