Legal Opinion

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 15, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The case turns on whether the action is local or transitory in its nature. If local, the defendants are entitled to have the cause moved to Mitchell County for trial as a matter of right. C. S., 463. If transitory, the motion for change of venue was properly overruled. Causey v. Morris, 195 N. C., 532, 142 S. E., 783.

The action 'is for the recovery of damages and appears to be a transitory one. It sounds in neither ejectment nor replevin; nor is it an action for injury to real property, such as contemplated by the statute above cited. Eames v. Armstrong, 136 N. C., 392, 48 S. E., 769;…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Causey v. . MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  2. Eames v. Armstrong.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mueller v. BrunnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Wheatley v. PhillipsDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1964
  3. Fulcher v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  4. Cox v. Oakdale Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API