{ "id": 8661064, "name": "BEACH v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Beach v. Southern Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1902-12-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "399", "last_page": "402", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 N.C. 399" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "131 U. S., 451", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N. C., 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651957 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/112/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N. C., 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273019 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 N. C., 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272849 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 U. S., 161", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3557216 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/142/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 L. R. A., 784", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 N. C., 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/128/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "126 N. C., 831", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662816 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/126/0831-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 L. R. A., 228", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Neb., 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 4425519 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/30/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 N. C., 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651171 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/112/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 953", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 U. S., 243", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 U. S., 430", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8299989 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/117/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 N. C., 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660798 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/129/0336-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 350, "char_count": 5928, "ocr_confidence": 0.429, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.209811994104169e-08, "percentile": 0.38449191439346464 }, "sha256": "a0c30153b55d8a9be0ef0899f6f89435f954330f25fdba60c14c21d30412044b", "simhash": "1:b3fdcd7b878b9ece", "word_count": 1056 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:51.027382+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "BEACH v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clark, J.\nWhen this case was called for trial, the defendant, the Southern Railway Company, moved for an order to proceed further with the cause, for the reason that it had been removed to the Circuit Court of the United States on the ground of local prejudice, presenting copies of the petition, affidavit, bond and order of removal from said Circuit Court. The presiding Judge being of the opinion that the defendant, originally a foreign corporation, but since \u201cdomesticated\u201d in this State under Laws 1899, Chap. 62, could not remove an action to the Federal Court on account of local prejudice, Allison v. R. Co., 129 N. C., 336, refused to stay action, and proceeded with the trial. The defendant excepted.\nIn such case, it is optional with the State Court to proceed with the trial. Stone v. S. C., 117 U. S., 430, cited Crehore v. Ohio, 131 U. S., 243; Howard v. R. Co., 122 N. C., 953-954. A case on \u201call fours\u201d is Lawson v. So. R. Co., 112 N. C., 390, also Bierbower v. Miller, 30 Neb., 161, 9 L. R. A., 228. Tbe trial having proceeded to verdict and judgment, which went against the defendant, it appealed to this Court, assigning four grounds of'\"exception, but the other three are without merit, and were abandoned in this Court.\nA foreign corporation which has voluntarily accepted the terms prescribed by the statute of this State under which it may do business here, and has \u201cdomesticated\u201d as provided in said statute, has become a domestic corporation as therein provided, and can not remove an action against it to the Federal Court. This has been fully considered, after elaborate argument by counsel for this defendant, and was so held in Allison v. So. R. Co., 129 N. C., 336; and also in Debnam v. Tel. Co., 126 N. C., 831 (in which case the statute is copied), and Layden v. K. P., 128 N. C., 546, the reasoning of which cases we adopt and make a part, of this opinion.\nWe do not understand the defendant\u2019s counsel to deny that, as a matter of fact, the defendant, the Southern Railway Company, has \u201cdomesticated\u201d by filing its charter and acceptance in the office of the Secretary of State, as required by Laws 1899, Chap. 62, admission of which fact has been made in this Court (Harden v. Railroad, 129 N. C., at page 359; 55 L. R. A., 784), in so many cases, and is a matter as universally known as that it is a corporation.\" Indeed, in this present case, the defendant\u2019s counsel submitted that \u201cthis case should take the course pursued in Allison v. So. R. Co., 129 N. C., 336,\u201d in which the legal effect of such domestication was presented and decided, and we are fixed with judicial notice that the effect of \u201cdomestication\u201d by this defendant was proved or admitted, and its legal effect decided in that case. Knight v. Land Asso., 142 U. S., 161. The decision in Allison\u2019s case that this defendant, the Southern Railway Company, is a domestic corporation, is res judicata of which the Court below had judicial notice.\nThe answer alleges that the defendant was \u201ca corporation duly created and organized under the laws of the State of Virginia, and is and was at the time mentioned, a citizen of the said State of Virginia,\u201d but without averring affirmatively that it was \u201cnot .a corporation or citizen of this State,\u201d and such allegation has been held insufficient in Thompson v. So. R. Co., 130 N. C., 140, and Springs v. So. R. Co., 130 N. C., 186, whose reasoning we adopt as a part of this decision.\nIt is true that in the petition in the U. S. Circuit Court, a copy of which is filed in this case, it is averred that the defendant \u201cis, and was at the commencement of this suit, a nonresident of the State of North Carolina, * * * and is not a citizen of North Carolina.\u201d This Court having decided otherwise on the facts admitted by this defendant, in former eases, we do- not understand that this is a denial of the fact so often admitted by the defendant\u2019s counsel in this Court, and so well known as to be common knowledge, that the defendant has \u201cdomesticated\u201d in the manner required by chapter 62, Laws 1899. We understand this to be merely a denial that the legal effect, of such \u201cdomestication\u201d has been to make the defendant a corporation of this State, a resident or citizen thereof, and that it is neither more nor less than an affidavit by this defendant that the decision of this Court on that point is not law, and that the object of this appeal is to have the repeated rulings of this Court that \u201cdomestication\u201d has that effect, reviewed on writ of error. If such averment in the petition of a legal conclusion is decisive, then the counsel and not the Court would determine the right to remove. Tucker v. Life Asso., 112 N. C., 796; In re Pa. Co., 131 U. S., 451.\nOn careful reconsideration of those opinions, some of which are above cited, we are constrained to reaffirm them, and to hold that the defendant having complied with the terms required before it was allowed to do business here, and having become \u201cdomesticated\u201d in the manner enacted by the statutes of this State, has become a corporation resident here, and that in holding that this cause could not be removed to the U. S. Circuit Court on the allegation of local prejudice, the Court below committed\nNo Error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clark, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. F. Spainhour, and M. Silver, for the plaintiff.", "Chas. Price, Geo. F. Bason, and S. J. Ervin, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BEACH v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed December 2, 1902.)\nREMOVAL OP CAUSES \u2014 Local Prejudice \u2014 Foreign Corporations\u2014 Domestication \u2014 Acis 1899, Chap. 6%.\nWhere a foreign corporation domesticates under Acts 1899, Chap. 62, it becomes a corporation resident here and can not remove an action to the federal courts on the ground of local prejudice.\nAction by Mary L. Beach, administrator of W. E. Beach, against the Southern Railway Company, heard by Judge W. A. Hoke, at August Term, 1902, of the Superior Court of Burke County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nJ. F. Spainhour, and M. Silver, for the plaintiff.\nChas. Price, Geo. F. Bason, and S. J. Ervin, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0399-01", "first_page_order": 437, "last_page_order": 440 }