Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 305,305 |
| Parties | Robert B. BYRD, Administrator of the Estate of David Frank, Deceased, v. PIEDMONT AVIATION, INC., a North Carolina Corporation, Kenneth Bergsma and W. T. Carpenter, Jr., Successor Administrator of the Estate of Julius Bergsma, trading and doing business under the name Bergsma Brothers, a Michigan Limited Partnership. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Stack & Graham, Charlotte, and Byrd & Byrd, Morganton, for plaintiff.
Uzzell & DuMont, Asheville, for defendant appellant.
The court erred in overruling the motion. Plaintiff undertook to serve summons on Bergsma under the provisions of G.S. § 1-105 and G.S. § 1-106. These statutes provide generally for substituted service of process upon nonresident drivers of motor vehicles. Hodges v. Home Insurance Co., 232 N.C. 475, 476, 61 S.E.2d 372, 373.
An airplane is not a 'motor vehicle' within the purview of G.S. § 1-105. That statute provides, in part, that 'The acceptance by a nonresident of the rights and privileges conferred by the laws now or hereafter in force in this State permitting the operation of motor vehicles, as evidenced by the operation of a motor vehicle by such nonresident on the public highways of this State, or at any other place in this State, or the operation by such nonresident of a motor vehicle on the public highways of this State or at any other place in this State, other than as so permitted or regulated, shall be deemed equivalent to the appointment by such nonresident of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or his successor in office, to be his true and lawful attorney and the attorney of his executor or administrator, upon whom may be served all summonses or other lawful process in any action or proceeding against him or his executor or administrator, growing out of any accident or collision in which said nonresident may be involved by reason of the operation by him, for him, or under his control or direction, express or implied, of a motor vehicle on such public highways of this State, or at any other place in this State, and said acceptance or operation shall be a signification of his agreement that any such process against him or his executor or administrator shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served on him personally, or on his executor or administrator.' The words 'or at any other place in this State,' were added to the original statute by an amendment, S.L.1955, Ch. 1022. Prior to the 1955 amendment it was clearly the operation of a 'motor vehicle' on the highways of the State which was deemed equivalent to appointment of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles as attorney in fact, upon whom service of summons might be had. An airplane is not designed for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arthur, Matter of
...a statute are to be given their natural, ordinary meaning, unless the context requires a different construction. Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 256 N.C. 684, 124 S.E.2d 880.' In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 635, 161 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1968). Lastly, and most pertinent, are these maxims: '(W)hen the......
-
Watson, In re, 438
...a statute are to be given their natural, ordinary meaning, unless the context requires a different construction. Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 256 N.C. 684, 124 S.E.2d 880. In the light of the legislative declaration of policy contained in the Employment Security Act, we conclude that an......
-
McReynolds v. Municipal Court of City of Ottumwa
...v. Gingrass, 338 Mass. 274, 154 N.E.2d 896 (1959); Rich v. Finley, 325 Mass. 99, 89 N.E.2d 213 (1949); Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 256 N.C. 684, 124 S.E.2d 880 (1962); Marr v. American Flyers Airline Corporation, 443 P.2d 961 (Okl.1968); State v. Work, 75 Wash.2d 204, 449 P.2d 806 (196......
-
Duke Power Co. v. Clayton, 274
...relation to the particular product involved and in accordance with general understanding of the words used. See Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 256 N.C. 684, 124 S.E.2d 880; Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary v. Wake County, 251 N.C. 775, 112 S.E.2d 528. Patently, the legislature in......