Legal Opinion

Foster v. Morrison

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 1, 1954No. 16922PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Taylor, Justice.

Where a foreign corporation has complied with the statutory requirements as to the appointment of a process agent, the Supreme Court of the United States has clearly indicated a leaning toward the construction of such statutes where possible, that would exclude from their operation causes of action not arising in the business done by them in the state. Missouri Pac. Railroad Co. v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co., 257 U. S. 533, 42 S. Ct. 210, 66 L. Ed. 354; Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Const. Co., 257 U. S. 213, 42 S. Ct. 84, 66 L. Ed. 201; Chipman v. Thomas B.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Clarendon Boat Oar Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  3. Chipman, Ltd. v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Szantay v. Beech Aircraft CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1965
  2. Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AGDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1979
  3. Clark v. Babbitt Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1973
  4. Raggio v. Woodman of the World Life Insurance SocietySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  5. Clark v. Babbitt Brothers, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1973

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API