R. H. Kingsbury v. . Chatham R. R. Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil action tried before Watts, Judge, at Spring Term 1871, of Granville Superior Court. The action was brought, as appears by the complaint, to recover an amount due for the bire of a slave in the year 1865. At the return term the defendant moved to dismiss the suit “upon the ground that the Court bad no jurisdiction, for [hat the action should have been brought in some county where, the track of the Chatham Rail Road, or some part thereof, is situated.”
Read the full summary
This was a civil action tried before Watts, Judge, at Spring Term 1871, of Granville Superior Court. The action was brought, as appears by the complaint, to recover an amount due for the bire of a slave in the year 1865. At the return term the defendant moved to dismiss the suit “upon the ground that the Court bad no jurisdiction, for [hat the action should have been brought in some county where, the track of the Chatham Rail Road, or some part thereof, is situated.” An affidavit was filed, stating in substance, that no part of tbe track of the said Rail Road was in the county of Granville,…
1Opinion of the Court
Read®, J.
Graham v. Charlotte & 8. C. Bail Road Co., 04c N. 0. 631, was brought in Orange county, and was dismiss- ednpon the ground that said Rail Road did not run in Orange county. It was dismissed under the provisions of the Actjj of 1868-’69, ch. 257. “The venire in actions against Rail Road Companies shall be laid in some county wherein the track of Company or some of it is situated.” This action is brought to Granville against the Chatham Rail Road Co., no part of which lies in Granville, and therefore upon the authority of the case cited above, it must be dismissed. The plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Graham v. Charlotte & S. C. Rail RoadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cline v. Bryson City Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895