{ "id": 8572871, "name": "WAYNE C. COATS and J. NORWOOD ADAMS, D/B/A ELECTRIC SALES AND SERVICE v. SAMPSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED", "name_abbreviation": "Coats v. Sampson County Memorial Hospital, Inc.", "decision_date": "1965-04-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "332", "last_page": "335", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "264 N.C. 332" } ], "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": "61 S.E. 2d 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603128, 8602959 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0391-02", "/nc/232/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655374 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 723", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610585 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.C. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690011 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/78/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 A.L.R. 2d 423", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "432" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8686231 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. 364", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8650857 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "151 S.E. 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "198 N.C. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603757 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 597", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622925 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0597-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S.E. 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595983 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 S.E. 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "570" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655522 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S.E. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 812", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0812-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659467 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/165/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611679 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 S.E. 346", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "347" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8649272 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/97/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N.C. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2092644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/67/0101-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 489, "char_count": 8541, "ocr_confidence": 0.602, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.243911913948488e-07, "percentile": 0.957507947374538 }, "sha256": "9a3f4628ebe16f23892e20fe7adbf6f4636a3441d5709cb08a05bc374cc59b66", "simhash": "1:bd2164d384fd961c", "word_count": 1451 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WAYNE C. COATS and J. NORWOOD ADAMS, D/B/A ELECTRIC SALES AND SERVICE v. SAMPSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SHARP, J.\nG.S. 1-77 provides that actions against a public officer or person especially appointed to execute his duties, for an act done by him by virtue of his office, must be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose. Any consideration of G.S. 1-77 (2) involves two questions: (1) Is defendant a \u201cpublic officer or person especially appointed to execute his duties\u201d? (2) In what county did the cause of action in suit arise? Here plaintiffs make no contention that the cause of action arose elsewhere than in Sampson County. The crux of their argument is that the venue of this action is determined by G.S. 1-82, not \u25a0by G.S. 1-77, for that defendant is not \u201ca public officer.\u201d\nG.S. 1-77 does not expressly include within its provisions municipal or quasi-municipal corporations or their agents.\n\u201c(B)ut these are public agencies, created and recognized by law, and charged with public duties which they execute by and through their officers and agents. Actions against them are inherently local in their nature, in the absence of an express statute to the contrary, and sound public policy forbids that such officers should be required to forsake their civic duties and attend the courts of a distant forum.\u201d McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure \u00a7 284 (1st Ed. 1929).\nThis Court early held that actions against counties must be brought in the county sued, Johnston v.. Commissioners, 67 N.C. 101, and, since \u201ccities and towns are of the like nature, and should stand upon the same footing,\u201d Jones v. Statesville, 97 N.C. 86, 88, 2 S.E. 346, 347, the principle was extended to actions against them. Ibid.; Godfrey v. Power Co., 224 N.C. 657, 32 S.E. 2d 27; Cecil v. High Point, 165 N.C. 431, 81 S.E. 616. See Powell v. Housing Authority, 251 N.C. 812, 112 S.E. 2d 386.\nIn Light Co. v. Commissioners, 151 N.C. 558, 66 S.E. 569, plaintiff Brevard Light and Power Company brought an action in the Superior Court of Transylvania County against the Light and Water Commissioners of Concord, a corporation created by the legislature as an agency of the City of Concord, for a breach of contract to deliver certain machinery. When defendant\u2019s motion to remove the action to Cabarrus County was denied, defendant appealed to this Court, which said,\n\u201c(T)he real question is whether the defendant is simply an agency of the city of Concord, charged with important duties, public in their nature. We think that it is ... . (T)he defendant\u2019s motion to remove the action for trial to the county of Cabarrus, in which the city of Concord is situate, ought to have been allowed . . . \"Id. at 560, 66 S.E. at 570.\nAdmittedly defendant is not a municipality in the sense of a political subdivision such as a city or a town or a quasi-municipality like a county. State ex rel. O\u2019Neal v. Jennette, 190 N.C. 96, 98, 129 S.E. 184, 185. G.S. 131-126.28 does, however, declare the establishment, construction, maintenance and operation of hospital facilities to be public and governmental functions; and, under the provisions of G.S. 131-126.20 and G.S. 131-126.21 (a), Sampson County has delegated to defendant its authority to exercise these functions. Defendant is, therefore, an agency of Sampson County; and, under the facts here disclosed, if the cause of action arose in Sampson County, defendant is entitled to have the case tried there, G.S. 1-77; otherwise it must be tried in the county where the cause of action did arise, Murphy v. High Point, 218 N.C. 597, 12 S.E. 2d 1; McFadden v. Maxwell, 198 N.C. 223, 151 S.E. 250; Watson v. Mitchell, 108 N.C. 364, 12 S.E. 836.\nPatently, this cause of action arose in Sampson County. Plaintiffs furnished to defendant there all the material and labor the value of which they now seek to recover in quantum valebant and in quantum meruit. The debt is the cause of action, and it arose where the debt originated. Steele v. Commissioners, 70 N.C. 137, 139. \u201cA broad, general rule applied or stated in many cases is that the cause of action arises in the county where the acts or omissions constituting the basis of the action occurred.\u201d Annot., Venue of actions or proceedings against public officers, 48 A.L.R. 2d 423, 432.\nJudge Clark correctly treated defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss as a motion for a change of venue. State ex rel. Cloman v. Staton, 78 N.C. 235. In the motion defendant had pointed out that Sampson County was the proper venue. Since this cause of action arose in Sampson County, G.S. 1-77 \u2014 subj ect to G.S. 1-83 \u2014 requires that the trial be had in Sampson County. Although the Recorder\u2019s Court of Harnett County could not have removed the case to Sampson County, Lovegrove v. Lovegrove, 237 N.C. 307, 74 S.E. 2d 723, yet, when the action came to the Superior Court of Harnett County on appeal, the judge properly removed the case to the Superior Court of Sampson County. Upon the facts here disclosed it would have been error had the judge refused to remove the case. Dixon v. Haar, 158 N.C. 341, 74 S.E. 1. When an action is instituted in the wrong county, the Superior Court should, upon apt motion, remove the action, not dismiss it. G.S. 1-83; Wiggins v. Trust Co., 232 N.C. 391, 61 S.E. 2d 72; Godfrey v. Power Co., supra; Dixon v. Haar, supra; State ex rel. Cloman v. Staton, supra; McIntosh, op. cit. supra \u00a7\u00a7 294-296. An appeal from a ruling on a motion for a change of venue under G.S. 1-77 is not premature. Cecil v. High Point, supra (appeal by plaintiff); Dixon v. Haar, supra (appeal by defendant).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "SHARP, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Morgan, Williams and DeBerry for plaintiffs, appellants.", "Taylor, Allen & Warren for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WAYNE C. COATS and J. NORWOOD ADAMS, D/B/A ELECTRIC SALES AND SERVICE v. SAMPSON COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED.\n(Filed 28 April, 1965.)\n1. Venue \u00a7 4\u2014\nA county hospital, G.S. 131-126.20, .21(a), .28, comes within the purview of G.S. 1-77, and an action against it for labor and materials furnished arises in the county in which the hospital is located, and when brought in another county is properly removed.\n2. Venue \u00a7 9\u2014\nWhere defendant, in an action brought in the recorder\u2019s court of the county of plaintiff\u2019s residence, moves to dismiss on the ground that the action could be instituted only in the county where the cause of action arose under G.S. 1-77, and, upon refusal of the motion, defendant appeals to the Superior Court, the Superior Court properly treats the motion to dismiss as a motion for change of venue, and properly removes the action, notwithstanding that the recorder\u2019s court could not have so removed the action.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 3\u2014\nAn appeal from a ruling on a motion for a change of venue under G.S. 1-77 is not premature.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from Clark, S. J., September 14, 1964 Civil Session of HARNETT.\nPlaintiffs, residents of Harnett County, brought this action in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Harnett County on September 10, 1963, to recover the sum of $3,536.92, the amount allegedly due from defendant for material furnished and labor performed on the Sampson County Memorial Hospital at Clinton. Before time for answering had expired, defendant moved to dismiss the action for the reason that the same \u201cmust be maintained in Sampson County.\u201d In support of the motion defendant filed an affidavit, by the administrator of the Sampson County Memorial Hospital, in which the affiant averred that defendant is a non-stock, non-profit corporation organized under Chapter 55A of the General Statutes; that it is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the Sampson County Board of Commissioners; that, under a 10-year lease, it occupies premises owned and provided for that purpose by Sampson County under the Municipal Hospital Facilities Act, G.S. 131-126.18 through G.S. 131-126.30; and that, in the event of dissolution, defendant is obligated to transfer all assets, excluding those provided by the Ford Foundation, to Sampson County. Plaintiffs do not controvert the affiant\u2019s statements in this affidavit.\nThe judge of the Recorder\u2019s Court held \u201cthat the proper venue of this action is Harnett County\u201d and overruled the motion \u201cthat this action be dismissed or removed.\u201d Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, where Judge Clark treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for a change of venue. He held (1) that the cause of action arose in Sampson County; (2) that the action was against a public agency of that county; and (3) that under G.S. 1-77 the proper venue is Sampson County. From his order removing the cause to the Superior Court of Sampson County, plaintiffs appeal.\nMorgan, Williams and DeBerry for plaintiffs, appellants.\nTaylor, Allen & Warren for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0332-01", "first_page_order": 368, "last_page_order": 371 }