Automotive Restyling Concepts, Inc. v. Central Service Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 87 N.C. App. 173 (1987)

Sept. 15, 1987 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 878DC144
87 N.C. App. 173
AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS, INC. v. CENTRAL SERVICE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC.

AUTOMOTIVE RESTYLING CONCEPTS, INC. v. CENTRAL SERVICE LINCOLN MERCURY, INC.

No. 878DC144

(Filed 15 September 1987)

Appeal and Error § 6.3— claim of no personal jurisdiction by Virginia court— action to enforce judgment — appeal interlocutory

Defendant’s appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is interlocutory and is dismissed where defendant’s motion was based on its claim that the Virginia judgment against it, which plaintiff sought to enforce by this action, was void in North Carolina because the Virginia court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, but the trial court’s in personam jurisdiction clearly encompassed defendant, a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Goldsboro, and whether the Virginia court properly asserted in personam jurisdiction over defendant was an issue to be determined by the trial court.

Appeal by defendant from Goodman, Judge. Order entered 29 October 1986 in District Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 September 1987.

Judson H. Blount, III, attorney for plaintiff-appellee.

Barnes, Braswell, Haithcock & Warren, by Glenn A. Barfield, attorney for defendant-appellant.

ORR, Judge.

Defendant has appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion, however, is based on defendant’s claim that the Virginia judgment against defendant, which plaintiff seeks to enforce by this action, is void in our state because the Virginia court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Our trial court’s in personam jurisdiction clearly encompasses defendant, a North Carolina corporation with its principal office in Goldsboro. Roberson v. Lumber Co., 153 N.C. 120, 68 S.E. 1064 *174(1910). Whether the Virginia court properly asserted in personam jurisdiction over defendant is an issue to be determined by the trial court.

Therefore, this appeal is interlocutory in nature and does not affect a substantial right which would be lost if not reviewed before final judgment. N.C.G.S. §§ 1-277 and 7A-27.

Appeal dismissed.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Arnold concur.