{
  "id": 8560591,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation, and all Other Creditors of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, who Desire to Join in the Prosecution of This Action and Contribute to the Costs Hereof, Relators, and GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation v. MARGARET S. BENFIELD, Administratrix of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Glamorgan Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Benfield",
  "decision_date": "1966-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "342",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 342"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574416
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0061-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 5254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2869622999651162e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6188870470826677
    },
    "sha256": "c2843da0cdd71cc8ba1bb348c28e7b33870c41473213fff9aedab4bbd359373b",
    "simhash": "1:a7bfa79af9d4c609",
    "word_count": 829
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation, and all Other Creditors of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, who Desire to Join in the Prosecution of This Action and Contribute to the Costs Hereof, Relators, and GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation v. MARGARET S. BENFIELD, Administratrix of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nG.S. 55-154, in pertinent part, provides: \u201c(a) No for\u00e9ign corporation transacting business in this State without permission obtained through a certificate of authority under this chapter or through domestication under prior acts shall be permitted to maintain any action or proceeding in any court of this State unless such corporation shall have obtained a certificate of authority prior to trial; ... An issue arising under this subsection must be raised by motion and determined by the trial judge prior to trial.\u201d\nThe issue raised by defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss should have been determined by the trial judge prior to trial. These motions challenged the authority of the court to proceed with a trial of the cause on its merits.\nWhat is denominated \u201cFinding of Fact\u201d No. 3 is actually a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Mills, Inc. v. Transit Co., 265 N.C. 61, 73, 143 S.E. 2d 235. Under authority of the cited case, which was decided July 23, 1965, defendants confess error and concede the cause must be remanded for specific findings as to facts pertinent to whether plaintiff \u201chas transacted business in the State of North Carolina.\u201d Defendants are well advised.\nAbsent specific findings of fact supported by evidence and justifying the conclusion of law embodied in \u201cFinding of Fact\u201d No. 3, the judgment of the court below is erroneous and is therefore vacated. The cause is remanded for a de novo hearing and determination of defendants\u2019 said motions to dismiss in accordance with requirements stated herein.\nThere has been no determination of any of the issues raised by the pleadings relating to the merits of plaintiff\u2019s cause of action.\nError and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Emanuel & Emanuel for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Ellis Nassif for Margaret S. Benfield, Administratrix, defendant appellee.",
      "Maupin, Taylor & Ellis and Frank W. Bullock, Jr., for The Phoenix Insurance Company defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation, and all Other Creditors of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, who Desire to Join in the Prosecution of This Action and Contribute to the Costs Hereof, Relators, and GLAMORGAN PIPE & FOUNDRY COMPANY, a Corporation v. MARGARET S. BENFIELD, Administratrix of the Estate of K. R. BENFIELD, Deceased, and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation.\n(Filed 14 January, 1966.)\n1. Actions \u00a7 3; Process \u00a7 13\u2014\nMotion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff is a foreign corporation which had transacted business in this State without being domesticated must be determined prior to trial, since the motion challenges the authority of the court to proceed. G.S. 55454(a).\n3. Same; Appeal and Error \u00a7 55\u2014\nWhere, upon defendants\u2019 motion, the court dismisses the action under G.S. 55454(a), upon the court\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff is a nonresident corporation that has transacted business here without being domesticated, the cause must be remanded, since the court must find the specific facts supporting its conclusion, notwithstanding the court denominates the conclusion a finding of fact.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Latham, Special Judge, First February Assigned Civil Session 1965 of Wake.\nGlamorgan Pipe & Foundry Company, a Virginia corporation, herein referred to as plaintiff,' instituted this civil action against the administratrix of the estate of K. R. Benfield (Benfield) and the surety on her administration bond.\nPlaintiff alleges it sold and delivered certain pipe and fittings to Benfield on or about April 16, 1959; that Benfield was indebted to plaintiff therefor in the amount of $1,778.06 plus interest at the time of his death on December 26, 1959; that plaintiff\u2019s claim therefor, which was duly filed with defendant administratrix, remains unpaid; and that, on account of the failure of defendant administra-trix in specified particulars to administer the estate of Benfield in accordance with law, defendants are liable to plaintiff for the amount of its claim.\nDefendants, in separate answers, denied, inter alia, plaintiff\u2019s allegations to the effect Benfield was indebted to plaintiff at the time of Benfield\u2019s death.\nWhen the case was called for trial, each defendant moved under G.S. 55-154 that plaintiff\u2019s action be dismissed. The court then denied said motions. After plaintiff and defendants had offered evidence, defendants renewed their said motions. Thereupon, the court entered judgment, which, after formal recitals, provides:\n. . and the Court finds the following facts:\n\u201c1. That the plaintiff is a corporation , organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Virginia.\n\u201c2. That said plaintiff corporation is not' and has never been domesticated to transact business in the State of North Carolina in accordance with General Statutes 55-154. \u2018 \u2019\n\u201c3. That said plaintiff corporation has transacted business in the State of North Carolina without being domesticated in the State of North Carolina in accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes 55-154.\n\u201cNow, THEREFORE, It Is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action be, and the same is hereby dismissed, and the plaintiff is taxed with the costs.\u201d\nPlaintiff excepted to \u201cFinding of Fact\u201d No. 3 and to the judgment and appealed.\nEmanuel & Emanuel for plaintiff appellant.\nEllis Nassif for Margaret S. Benfield, Administratrix, defendant appellee.\nMaupin, Taylor & Ellis and Frank W. Bullock, Jr., for The Phoenix Insurance Company defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0342-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 380
}