Farris v. Receivers of Richmond & Danville Railroad
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a motion by defendants to dismiss, heard before Poylcin, J., at Spring Term, 1894, of Mecklenburg Superior Court.
Read the full summary
This was a motion by defendants to dismiss, heard before Poylcin, J., at Spring Term, 1894, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. It was admitted that the defendants were non-residents, and were not a corporation, but had been appointed receivers of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, a railroad corporation, by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia, and that T. T. Smith was their managing agent at Charlotte, N. C. The Sheriff’s return of the summons was as follows: “ Received Dec. 4, 1898. Executed Dec. 5,1893, by delivering a copy of the within summons to…
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
This is an action against “S., H. and F., receivers of R. & D. R. R. Co.” It is not an action against them individually. It is, in fact, an action against the corporation. The recovery, if any, must be paid out of the property of the corporation. The receivers are named only because they are temporarily in management of the corporation in place of its regular officials. The Code, 217, provides that when an action is against a corporation, service of summons can be made on a local agent. Here, service was upon the station agent at Charlotte. He could as readily notify the receivers…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Guilford v. . Georgia Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
3Cited by13 opinions
- Maddux v. Gardner and MarbleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1945
- Grady v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Southern Pants Co. v. Rochester German InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- State v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. HudsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.