Case Name: J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-02-25
Citations: 152 N.C. 34
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
J. R. VOLIVAR v. RICHMOND CEDAR WORKS.
(Filed 25 February, 1910.)
1. Limitation of Actions — Suspension—Nonresident Defendants— Property — Agent.
Revisal, 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.
2. Limitation of Actions — Nonresident Defendant — Suspension— Corporations.
Revisal, sec. 366, suspending tbe running of tbe statute as to nonresident defendants, applies to nonresident corporations.
Appeal by defendant from Ward, J., at Fall Term, 1909, of TYRRELL.
Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court.
Aydlett & Ehringhaus for plaintiff.
W. M. Bond, W. W. Starlce and Shepherd & Shepherd for defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, C. J.
Action 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: "Tbat 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."
Ownership 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.
That 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.
No error.