It is provided by O. S., 1137 that every corporation, domestic or foreign, having property or doing business in this State, shall have a process officer or agent in the State upon whom service can he had in all actions or proceedings against it. It is further provided that upon failure to name such process officer or agent, service may be had upon the corporation by leaving a true copy of the process with the Secretary of State, who is required to mail the same to the proper officer of the corporation. And in case of a foreign corporation having property or doing business in this State without appointing a process officer or agent as required by this section, we have held that valid service of process may be had upon such corporation by leaving copy thereof with the Secretary of State, as well as by service upon officers and agents of such corporation under the general provisions of C. S., 483. Lanceford v. Association, 190 N. C., 314, 129 S. E., 805; Steele v. Tel. Co., ante, 220.
It is conceded that the Virginia Trust Company, a foreign corporation and defendant herein, has no process officer or agent in this State upon whom service of process may be had. The question then occurs: Is the defendant doing business in this State, or does it have property here, so as to render it amenable to process under the provisions of O. S., 1137?
A similar fact situation appeared in the case of Reich v. Mortgage Corporation, 204 N. C., 790, 168 S. E., 814, where the ruling “that the defendant owns property and is doing business in this State” was upheld as a matter of course. The same conclusion seems to be well supported in the instant case. Railway v. Alexander, 227 U. S., 218; R. R. v. Cobb, 190 N. C., 375, 129 S. E., 828; Currie v. Mining Co., 157 N. C., 209, 72 S. E., 980.
The expression “doing business in this State,” as used in C. S., 1137, means engaging in, carrying on, or exercising, in this State, some of the things, or some of the functions, for which the corporation was created. 14 C. J., 1270.
The eases of Commercial Trust v. Gaines, 193 N. C., 233, 136 S. E., 609, and Timber Co. v. Ins. Co., 192 N. C., 115, 133 S. E., 424, cited and relied upon by appellant, are easily distinguishable. The ruling will be upheld.