Vestal v. Moseley Vending MacHine Exchange, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBaRNHill, J.
We are unable to determine upon what grounds the corporate defendant bases its contention that it is not subject to suit in the courts of North Carolina. It contends that there are two separate corporations. Both demurred. If it is a Virginia corporation then the service of the summons under C. S., 491, and the attachment of its property gives jurisdiction. If it is a North Carolina corporation which has withdrawn from the State and left no process agent within the State, as appears by affidavit, then the service of summons upon the Secretary of State is sufficient. Conceding, however, the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Buchanan v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Wadford v. . GilletteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Scott v. . Life AssociationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Caldwell v. . RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. LazarusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Rader v. Queen City Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Putnam v. Triangle Publications, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Town of Burnsville v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Fox v. Cramerton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Smith v. . DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.