Mills v. Tri-State Motor Transit Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtLake, J.
The findings of fact to which the defendant excepts are each supported by evidence in the record and are, therefore, conclusive. Stewart v. Rogers, 260 N.C. 475, 133 S.E. 2d 155; Hodges v. Hodges, 257 N.C. 774, 127 S.E. 2d 567; Gasperson v. Rice, 240 N.C. 660, 83 S.E. 2d 665. These exceptions are, therefore, without merit.
Since, as the trial court found, “Tri-State did not domesticate or qualify to do business in North Carolina,” G.S. 55-143 (b) has no application. Since, as the court below also found, the plaintiff is a foreign corporation with its principal office and place of business in…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hodges v. HodgesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Lambert v. SchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Abney Mills v. Tri-State Motor Transit CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Commercial Investment Trust, Inc. v. GainesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Harrison v. . CorleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- S & R Auto & Truck Service, Inc. v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Throwing Corp. of America v. Deering Milliken Research Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1969
- Crabtree v. Coats & Burchard Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
- Lutz v. Gaston County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.