McGovern & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 180 N.C. 219 (1920)

Oct. 20, 1920 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

180 N.C. 219

McGOVERN & COMPANY, Inc., v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY and WALKER D. HINES, Director General.

(Filed 20 October, 1920.)

Courts — Jurisdiction—Transitory Actions — Actions—Railroads— Statutes-—General Orders.

Tbe courts of our State bave jurisdiction of an action brought bere by a nonresident plaintiff, against a railroad'company, incorporated in North-. Carolina, to recover an injury to, or loss of goods, caused by an initial and connecting carrier, a foreign corporation, in another State (Rev.,. 1500; C. S., I486), the cause of action being transitory; and Rev., 423, 424; C. S., 468, 469, and General Orders of Director General of Railroads, Nos. 18 and 18-a, relate solely to venue and have no application to taking-jurisdiction of an action.

. Appeal by defendant from Stacy, J., at February Term, 1920, of New HaNovee, for refusal to sustain tbe demurrer of tbe defendañts-to tbe jurisdiction, and to dismiss tbe action.

Garr, Poisson & Diclcson for plaintiffs.

Rountree & Davis for defendants.

Clare, 0. J.

Tbe cause of action arose in Massachusetts by the-wrongful act of tbe Boston & Albany Eailroad Company, tbe initial carrier, connecting witb tbe Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company. Tbe plaintiffs are residents of New York, and tbe defendant, tbe Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company, is a North Carolina corporation for tbe purposes of jurisdiction. Staton v. R. R., 144 N. C., 135; R. R. v. Spencer, reviewed and reaffirmed; Brown v. Jackson, 179 N. C., 363.

Certainly tbe Superior Court has jurisdiction of an action brought by a nonresident against a domestic corporation in tbe State of its domicile. Tbe defendant, in bis demurrer to tbe jurisdiction, relies-upon tbe Rev., 424; C. S., 468, 469. But these sections, as well as Rev., 423; C. S., 467, are in tbe subchapter, “Yenue,” and bave no application to jurisdiction which is governed by Eev., 1500; C. S., 1436; which provides that “Tbe Superior Court has original jurisdiction of all civil action where exclusive original jurisdiction is not given to some other-court.”

Rev., 423, was fully considered in Ledford v. Tel. Co., 179 N. C., 63, in a well reasoned opinion by Allen, J., which held that “an action to-recover damages for an injury negligently inflicted is transitory, and tbe party injured may maintain such action in our State, though be may be a nonresident and tbe cause of action arose in another State, regardless of tbe defendant’s nonresidence bere, or whether it be a corporation, if valid service of summons can be made bere. Tbe same ruling applies to Rev., 424. The decisions cited in Ledford v. Tel. Co., supra, are numerous and are selected from many States, and are conclusive.

If tbe defendant’s reasoning was correct, action could not be brought in New York, where' the plaintiffs reside, nor in Massachusetts, where the cause of action arose, because the defendant railroad company cannot be served in either of those States.

The defendants also maintain that this action" cannot be maintained at all against the railroad company, but we have held to the contrary in Clements v. R. R., 179 N. C., 225; Gilliam v. R. R., ib., 508; Hill v. Director General, 178 N. C., 609, which have been reaffirmed at this term in Vann v. R. R., 180 N. C.,

General Orders Nos. 18 and 18-a, relied upon by the defendants, pertain, like Rev., 423 and 424, only to venue, and do not deprive our courts of jurisdiction.

•The demurrer to the jurisdiction was therefore properly overruled.

Affirmed.