Shepard v. Rheem Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 241,241 |
| Citation | 106 S.E.2d 704,249 N.C. 454 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Kathryn P. SHEPARD v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc., and Ervin Construction Company, Inc. |
Robinson, Jones & Hewson, Charlotte, for defendants appellants.
Blakeney & Alexander, Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Payne & Hedrick, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellee.
Appellant states this as the question involved on this appeal: 'Upon the facts found by the Superior Court Judge, did the court err in holding that the defendant Rheem Manufacturing Company is subject to in personam jurisdiction of the court?'
And it is stated in appellant's brief filed in this Court that 'the primary errors complained of consist in reaching the wrong legal result upon findings of fact to which no exception is taken.'
In this connection it is provided by statute in this State, G.S. § 55-145, in respect to jurisdiction over foreign corporations, not transacting business in this State, that:
'(a) Every foreign corporation shall be subject to suit in this State, by a resident of this State or by a person having a usual place of business in this State, whether or not such foreign corporation is transacting or has transacted business in this State and whether or not it is engaged exclusively in interstate or foreign commerce, on any cause of action arising * * * (3) out of the production, manufacture, or distribution of goods by such corporation with the reasonable expectation that those goods are to be used or consumed in this State and are so used, or consumed regardless of how or where the goods were produced, manufactured, marketed, or sold or whether or not through the medium of independent contractors or dealers * * *.'
Applying the provisions of this statute, G.S. § 55-145(a) (3), to the facts found by the court, it seems clear that the Legislature in enacting the statute had in mind just such situation as that involved here. For as is succinctly stated by appellee in her brief, inflicting upon her serious personal injury.
Manifestly, therefore, upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Etzler v. Dille and McGuire Manufacturing Company
...Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E.2d 673 (1957); Adamek v. Michigan Door Co., 260 Minn. 54, 108 N.W.2d 607 (1961); Shepard v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 249 N.C. 454, 106 S.E.2d 704 (1959); Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp., 116 Vt. 569, 80 A.2d 664, 25 A.L.R.2d 1193 This court upholds the constituti......
-
St. Clair v. Righter
...Miller, 11 Ill.2d 378, 143 N.E. 2d 673 (1957); Adamek v. Michigan Door Co., 260 Minn. 54, 108 N.W.2d 607 (1961); Shepard v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 249 N.C. 454, 106 S.E.2d 704 (1959); Smyth v. Twin State Improvement Corp., 116 Vt. 569, 80 A.2d 664, 25 A.L.R.2d 1193 (1951). See also the cases cited......
- Sledge v. Miller
-
Belk v. Belk's Dept. Store of Columbia, S. C., Inc.
...do not immunize Department Store from service of process and in personam judgments by the courts of this State. Shepard v. Rheem Manufacturing Co., 249 N.C. 454, 106 S.E.2d 704; Painter v. Home Finance Co., 245 N.C. 576, 96 S.E.2d 731; Harrington v. Craft Steel Products, Inc., 244 N.C. 675,......