Legal Opinion
Harrington v. Croft Steel Products, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided October 31, 1956No. 234PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHiggins, J.
The defendant is a foreign corporation. It has neither obtained a certificate of authority to do business in this State nor appointed a process agent. Process was served on the Secretary of State. The plaintiff contends that service was effective to bring the defendant into court under G.S. 55-38 upon the ground the defendant was doing business in North Carolina. The plaintiff further contends that if the court should fail to find the defendant was doing business here, the court should find that the contract sued on was made in this State, to be performed here, and the cause of action arose…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- St. Clair v. CoxSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Mutual Fire Insurance v. MeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Currie v. Golconda Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Joseph M. Shealy, Jr. v. Challenger Manufacturing Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- Royal Business Funds Corp. v. South Eastern Development Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Bryson v. Northlake HiltonDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1976
- Worley's Beverages, Inc. v. Bubble Up CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1958
- Belk v. Belk's Department Store of Columbia, S. C., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.