{
  "id": 8547507,
  "name": "FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THE NORTHWESTERN BANK",
  "name_abbreviation": "First Union National Bank of North Carolina v. Northwestern Bank",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7330SC74",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 113"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "12 U.S.C. \u00a7 94",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575564
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 633",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573745,
        8573711
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0503-02",
        "/nc/272/0503-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 3574,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20583999298800817
    },
    "sha256": "5b280c0badb9783dc0769ffa75b092457a7b02c8d8b9d9fe55f9154063ab2a87",
    "simhash": "1:914eea58ffc47ee2",
    "word_count": 583
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THE NORTHWESTERN BANK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of its motion for change of venue.\nThe present action being transitory, either the county of residence of the plaintiff or defendant is the proper venue. Thompson v. Harrell, 272 N.C. 503, 158 S.E. 2d 633 (1968); G.S. 1-82.\nFor the purpose of suing or being sued, a domestic corporation is a resident of the county where it has its registered or principal office. G.S. 1-79.\nBoth plaintiff and defendant are corporations. Neither has its registered or principal office in Jackson County. Defendant, a domestic corporation, has its principal and registered office in Wilkes County. Therefore, under G.S. 1-79 and G.S. 1-82, Wilkes County is the proper venue.\nSecurity Mills v. Trust Co., 281 N.C. 525, 189 S.E. 2d 266 (1972), cited by the plaintiff, is not applicable to the present situation. The cited case stands for the proposition that under 12 U.S.C. \u00a7 94, a national bank is \u201clocated\u201d and may be sued in the appropriate State court of each county where it maintains a branch office.\nFor the reasons stated, the order denying defendant\u2019s motion to remove the cause to Wilkes County is\nReversed.\nJudges Brock and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holt & Havre, P.A., by R. Phillip Haire, for plaintiff ap-pellee.",
      "W. G. Mitchell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THE NORTHWESTERN BANK\nNo. 7330SC74\n(Filed 25 April 1973)\n1. Venue \u00a7 2\u2014 transitory action \u2014 residence of either party as proper venue\nAn action against defendant for money damages for its alleged failure to procure the signature of a joint payee of a check and for breach of \u201cthe accepted banking practice\u201d of honoring its warranty to redeem such cheek upon dishonor and notice of dishonor is transitory; therefore, either the county of residence of the plaintiff or defendant is the proper venue.\n2. Venue \u00a7 2\u2014 domestic corporation \u2014 residence\nFor the purpose of suing or being sued, a domestic corporation is a resident of the county where it has its registered or principal office. G.S. 1-79.\n3. Venue \u00a7 2\u2014 domestic corporation \u2014 county of registered or principal office as proper venue\nWhere both plaintiff and defendant are corporations, neither has its registered or principal office in Jackson County where the action was instituted, but defendant, a domestic corporation, has its principal and registered office in Wilkes County, Wilkes County is the proper venue. G.S. 1-79; G.S. 1-82.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, Judge, 9 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Jackson County.\nPlaintiff, First Union National Bank of North Carolina (payor bank) instituted this action in the District Court held in Jackson County, to recover of defendant, The Northwestern Bank (depositary bank) $11,538.03 for its alleged failure to procure the signature of a joint payee of a check and for breach of the \u201caccepted banking practice\u201d of honoring its warranty to redeem such check upon dishonor and notice of dishonor. Upon motion of defendant, the case was transferred to the Superior Court held in Jackson County.\nPlaintiff is a national bank with its principal and registered office in Mecklenburg County and with branch offices in several counties in this State including Jackson County. Defendant is a state bank with its principal and registered office in Wilkes County and with branch offices in several counties, but none in Jackson County.\nDefendant, before filing a responsive pleading, made motion for a change of venue to Wilkes County. By order filed 11 October 1972, defendant\u2019s motion was denied.\nDefendant appealed.\nHolt & Havre, P.A., by R. Phillip Haire, for plaintiff ap-pellee.\nW. G. Mitchell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 139
}