Ruark v. Va. Trust Co
| Decision Date | 23 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 375.,375. |
| Citation | 206 N. C. 564,174 S.E. 441 |
| Parties | RUARK et al. v. VIRGINIA TRUST CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Harris, Judge.
Action by S. W. Ruark and others against the Virginia Trust Company. From an order denying its motion to dismiss the action for want of proper service, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Service of summons was made by leaving copy with the secretary of state and having him mail same to the president of the Virginia Trust Company, it being alleged that the defendant, a foreign corporation, has property or is doing business in this state without complying with the provisions of C. S. § 1137.
The defendant, through its counsel, entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action for want of proper service.
Upon the hearing of this motion, the clerk found the following facts:
1. That the defendant is a foreign corporation, without process agent in this state, and is engaged in conducting a general banking, trust, and fiduciary business at Richmond, Va.
2. That, during the period from 1927 to 1933, the defendant was named as trustee in more than 100 deeds of trust creating liens on property situate in Wake and Franklin counties, N. C.; that under said deeds of trust the defendant was vested with title to the properties described therein, authorized to take possession thereof, collect rents, and foreclosure in case of default, etc.
3. That the defendant has exercised the power of sale in a number of said deeds of trust, reported same to the clerk of the superior court, and sent its agents into the state for the purpose of investigating and looking after said properties in its capacity as trustee.
4. That the defendant was and is engaged in a trust and fiduciary business in this state in the manner aforesaid.
5. That the defendant has property in this state consisting of certain dividends in the hands of plaintiffs.
Upon these, the facts chiefly pertinent, the motion to dismiss for want of proper service was overruled. Defendant appeals, assigning error.
Thos. W. Ruffin, of Raleigh, for appellant.
Robert Ruark, of Raleigh, for appellees.
It is provided by C. S. § 1137 that every corporation, domestic or foreign, having property or doing business in this state, shall have a process officer or agent in the state upon whom service can be had in all actions or proceedings against it. It is further provided that, upon failure to name such process officer or agent, service may be had upon the corporation by leaving a true copy of the process with the secretary of state, who is required to mail the same to the proper officer of the corporation. And in case of a foreign corporation having property or doing business in this state without appointing a process officer or agent as required by this section, we have held that valid service of process may be had upon such corporation by leaving copy thereof with the secretary of state, as well as by service upon officers and agents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parris v. H. G. Fischer & Co.
... ... upon the facts brought before it, the following criteria were ... suggested in an opinion by Connor, J., in Commercial Inv ... Trust Co. v. Gaines, 193 N.C. 233, 136 S.E. 609, 610: ... "It has been generally held that a foreign corporation ... cannot be held to be doing business ... determinative of the question as to whether the corporation ... is doing business in the state." In Ruark v. Trust ... Co., 206 N.C. 564, 174 S.E. 441, 442, Stacy, C. J., ... succinctly states the rule in this way: "The expression ... 'doing business ... ...
-
Staley v. Homeland, Inc.
...the contract was one "to be performed in North Carolina" and had "substantial connection" with this State. (4) Ruark v. Va. Trust Co., 206 N.C. 564, 174 S.E. 441 (1934), found that where defendant was trustee of over 100 deeds of trust in North Carolina it was "doing business" in this (5) K......
-
Beaty v. International Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers
...489; State Highway & Public Works Commission v. Diamond S. S. Transportation Corp., 225 N.C. 198, 34 S.E.2d 78; Ruark v. Virginia Trust Co., 206 N.C. 564, 174 S.E. 441; Lunceford v. Commercial Travelers' Mutual Accident Association, supra; Bankers' Holding Corp. v. Maybury, 161 Wash. 681, 2......
-
Lambert v. Schell, 317
...doing some of the things or exercising some of the functions in this State for which the corporation was created. Ruark v. Virginia Trust Co., 206 N.C. 564, 174 S.E. 441; Radio Station, WMFR, Inc., v. Eitel-McCullough, supra. Harrison v. Corley, 226 N.C. 184, 37 S.E.2d 489, and cases And th......