This is an action instituted in tbe general county court of Buncombe County to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract of employment of tbe plaintiff by tbe corporate defendant.
After complaint was filed and before time for answering expired, tbe defendants entered special appearances and moved to dismiss tbe action upon tbe ground that there has been no valid service of process under C. S., 483 (1). Tbe motion was denied as to tbe individual defendant, and allowed as to tbe corporate defendant. From tbe allowance of tbe motion as to tbe corporate defendant by tbe county court, the plaintiff appealed to tbe Superior Court, and upon tbe hearing of tbe case upon *238appeal, tbe Superior Court overruled tbe exceptions of tbe plaintiff and affirmed tbe judgment of tbe county court dismissing tbe action as to tbe corporate defendant. From tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court tbe plaintiff ajjpealed to tbe Supreme Court, assigning errors.
Tbe plaintiff relies upon tbe cases of Jester v. Steam Packet Co., 131 N. C., 54; McDonald v. MacArthur, 154 N. C., 122; Cunningham v. Express Co., 67 N. C., 425; and Menefee v. Cotton Mills, 161 N. C., 164, and tbe corporate defendant, appellee, concedes that these cases support tbe contentions of tbe plaintiff and are against its position, but tbe appellee contends that tbe case of Colton Mills, plaintiff in error, v. Menefee, 237 U. S., 189 (59 Law ed., 910), which reversed tbe decision of this Court in Menefee v. Cotton Mills, supra, is applicable to tbe instant ease and destroys tbe authority of the cases mentioned for the position of tbe plaintiff on this appeal.
Tbe Superior Court adopted tbe findings of fact and affirmed tbe judgment of tbe county court dismissing tbe action. Tbe findings of fact are supported by tbe evidence, and, when tbe principles enunciated in Cotton Mills v. Menefee, supra, are applied to tbe facts found, they support tbe judgment. These facts are substantially that tbe defendant appellee, the Planters Tobacco Warehouse, Inc., is a corporation chartered by and having its principal office and place of business in tbe State of Tennessee, and operates three warehouses in Greenville, Tennessee, at which tobacco is sold on commission; that W. E. Russell is tbe president of said corporation; that on and prior to 30 September, 1938, tbe date service of summons was made upon said Russell by delivering to him a copy thereof, said corporation was not doing business within tbe State of North Carolina, and did not maintain a process agent or any other agent in, and bad not domesticated in, and did not own property in said State; that said Russell was in tbe State of North Carolina on 30 September, 1938, to attend to bis cattle business, which business was personal and in no wise connected with tbe business of tbe defendant corporation; that the plaintiff is a resident of Asheville, North Carolina.
Tbe Supreme Court of tbe United States in Cotton Mills v. Menefee, supra, states: “. . . it is indubitably established that tbe courts of one state may not, without violating tbe due process clause of tbe 14th Amendment, render a judgment against a corporation organized under tbe laws of another state where such corporation has not come into such state for tbe purpose of doing business therein, or has done no business therein, or has no property therein, or has no qualified agent therein upon whom process may be served; and that tbe mere fact that an officer of a corporation may temporarily be in tbe state or even permanently *239reside therein, if not there for the purpose of transacting business for the corporation, or vested with authority by the corporation to transact business in such state, affords no basis for acquiring jurisdiction or escaping the denial of due process under the 14th Amendment which would result from decreeing against the corporation upon a service had upon such an officer under such circumstances.”
Since a federal question is involved, we are bound by the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, and an application of such ruling to the instant case impels the affirmation of the judgment of the Superior Court.
Affirmed.