(Filed 17 September, 1941.)
Venue § la—
In an action for negligent injury, tbe court’s finding, upon conflicting evidence, tliat tbe residence of plaintiff is in tbe county in wbicb tbe action is instituted, tbe finding supported by sufficient competent evidence is binding upon appeal, and defendant’s exception to tbe refusal of bis motion to remove cannot be sustained.
Appeal by defendant from Thompson, J., at April Term, 1941, of Beaupobt.
Affirmed.
Civil action to recover compensation for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision, heard on motion to remove.
An automobile being operated by plaintiff and an automobile being operated by the defendant collided on a public road in Pitt County. Plaintiff alleges tbat the collision was caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant and that be sustained certain personal injuries as a result thereof.
*40 LeRoy Scott and Garter & Garter for plaintiff, appellee.
J. B. James and Louis 0. Shinner for defendant, appellant.
Pee CitRiam.
On the motion to remove the cause to Pitt County as the proper venue for the trial of the cause the evidence as to the residence of the plaintiff was conflicting. The court found as a fact that he is a resident of Beaufort County. There is sufficient competent evidence to support the finding.. It is, therefore, binding on this Court. McCue v. Times-News Co., 199 N. C., 802, 156 S. E., 129.
Affirmed.