Upon the facts found by the trial court, which are conclusive on appeal, as they are supported by competent evidence (Hennis v. Hennis, 180 N. C., 606, 105 S. E., 274), there was no error in holding that the defendant was a nonresident of the State within the meaning of chapter 75, Public Laws 1929, at the time of the collision between her automobile and the truck driven by the plaintiff. Brann v. Hanes, 194 N. C., 571, 140 S. E., 292; Gower v. Carter, 195 N. C., 697, 143 S. E., 513; S. v. Carter, 194 N. C., 293, 139 S. E., 604; Roanoke Rapids v. Patterson, 184 N. C., 135, 113 S. E., 603; Hannon v. Grizzard, 89 N. C., 115.
The case of White v. Lumber Co., 199 N. C., 410, 154 S. E., 620, is distinguishable and has no particular bearing upon the question presently presented. The fact that it was written under a per curiam opinion, however, in no way impairs its force as a precedent for what it decides. Hyder v. Henderson County, 190 N. C., 663, 130 S. E., 497. Per curiam decisions stand upon the -same footing as those in which fuller citations of authorities are made and more extended opinions are written. Mote v. Lamber Co., 192 N. C., 460, 135 S. E., 294; S. v. Munn, 134 N. C., 680, 47 S. E., 15; Parker v. R. R., 133 N. C., 336, 45 S. E., 658; Osborn v. Leach, 133 N. C., 427, 45 S. E., 783; S. v. Council, 129 N. C., 511, 39 S. E., 814.