{
  "id": 11269432,
  "name": "J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Volivar v. Richmond Cedar Works",
  "decision_date": "1910-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. 34"
    }
  ],
  "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": "116 N. C., 797",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/0797-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 L. R. A., 794",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N. C., 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/131/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650509
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/111/0053-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2355,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.605085434253971e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40372295836552635
    },
    "sha256": "7bee45648e7c8244a38451864164cb545d766d1d1c6fa92c12e7ab60bb39aefc",
    "simhash": "1:5a6da05b25921a62",
    "word_count": 394
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:47.463636+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nAction for damages against a nonresident corporation. More than three years elapsed after tbe damage was committed before tbis action was begun. Tbe defendant contends tbat Revisal, sec. 366, suspending tbe running of tbe statute as to nonresident defendants, does not apply: (1) Because it owns property in tbis State. Tbis bas been decided against tbe defendant. Grist v. Williams, 111 N. C., 53. (2) Because, in accordance witb our statute, tbe defendant bad a duly appointed agent in tbis State, upon whom process could have been served. Tbis contention has also been held adversely to tbe defendant. Williams v. B. and L. Assn., 131 N. C., 267; Green v. Ins. Co., 139 N. C., 309; Williams v. R. R., 64 L. R. A., 794, and cases there cited. In Green v. Ins. Co., 139 N. C., 310, this Court, speaking of tbis contention, said: \u201cTbat service can thus be bad upon a nonresident corporation may be a reason why tbe General Assembly should amend Code sec. 162 (now Revisal, sec. 366), so as to set tbe statute running in such cases; but it has not done so, and tbe courts cannot.\u201d\nOwnership of property in tbis State does not make a nonresident corporation or individual a resident of tbis State, neither does tbe appointment of a local agent upon whom process can be served have tbat effect.\nThat the suspension of the statute applies to nonresident corporations as well as individuals was held in Alpha Mills v. Engine Co., 116 N. C., 797; Grist v. Williams, 111 N. C., 53; Green v. Ins. Co., 139 N. C., 310.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aydlett & Ehringhaus for plaintiff.",
      "W. M. Bond, W. W. Starlce and Shepherd & Shepherd for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS.\n(Filed 25 February, 1910.)\n1. Limitation of Actions \u2014 Suspension\u2014Nonresident Defendants\u2014 Property \u2014 Agent.\nRevisal, sec. 366, suspending tbe running of tbe statute as to nonresident defendants, applies notwithstanding tbe fact tbat defendant bas property witbin tbe State and an agent therein duly appointed, upon whom process could have been served.\n2. Limitation of Actions \u2014 Nonresident Defendant \u2014 Suspension\u2014 Corporations.\nRevisal, sec. 366, suspending tbe running of tbe statute as to nonresident defendants, applies to nonresident corporations.\nAppeal by defendant from Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1909, of TYRRELL.\nTbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court.\nAydlett & Ehringhaus for plaintiff.\nW. M. Bond, W. W. Starlce and Shepherd & Shepherd for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 80,
  "last_page_order": 81
}