Court Opinion

ID: 9808132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:28:55.480559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:11.853099
License: Public Domain

Furches, J.,
dissenting. It is with hesitation that I dissent from the well-considered opinion of the Court, especially so, when personally T have no objection to the conclusion arrived at. And it may appear strange that I dissent for the reason that I have an entirely different conception of the case from that of the Court. If I agreed with the Court as to who the defendant is, I would agree with the Court in its conclusion.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the case, but simply to state' my position and some of the reasons for my. not agreeing with the Court; and it is to be regretted that a. case of so much importance as this should be presented in such a way as to leave any doubt as to the very question upon which I think the appeal depends.
Is the New York corporation or the North Carolina corporation the defendant ? The summons does not say which is the defendant. The complaint does not say in direct terms whether it. is the; New York corporation or the North Carolina corporation. But it seems to me that by direct implication it does say that it is the New York corporation. It says: “That the defendant is a corporation duly organized, and is doing business in North Carolina, and has become and is a domestic corporation under the laws of said State.”
It is plainly stated that the defendant is a corporation, and that it (the defendant) has become a domestic corporation under the laws of North Carolina. So the thing sued existed before it became domesticated. It is not the thing created by domestication that is sued, but the thing that existed before, *850and lias become domesticated. Rut if there was any doubt as to this, it seems to me to be made plain and certain by the affidavit of O. A. Dozier, which was received and considered by the Court in passing upon the motion to remove. He says “That at the time said suit was begun, and at the present time, the defendant was, and still is, a corporation chartered by and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.”
And the Court in passing upon the motion to remove, says: “That considering the affidavit aforesaid (Dozier’s) filed by the defendant, along with its petition, the defendant is a corporation of the State of North Carolina.” These facts stated in the affidavit were not denied — were considered by the Court; and must be taken as true. These facts being true it seems to me settles the question, and shows that it was the New York corporation which was sued. In other words, there was a latent ambiguity (two John Smiths), and the affidavit showed it was the New York John which was sued. But as it has become domesticated under the Act of 1899, the Judge held as a matter of law that the New York corporation was not entitled to have the case removed because it had become a domestic corporation. In this I think he was in error.
It fis stated in the opinion of the Court that it must have been the North Carolina corporation which was sued, as it is admitted that the defendant was doing business in North Carolina at the time of the injury; and that the New York corporation had no right to do business in North Carolina after the Act of 1899 went into effect. I submit that this must be an error. It is true that this act did take from the defendant and all other foreign corporations their comity — their right, to engage in business in this State; unless they complied with that act by becoming domesticated. But when *851they did this, their right of comity was restored, and the conclusion of the Court is incorrect.
I agree that a foreign corporation may become a North Carolina corporation by complying with the Act of 1899. Indeed, there must be a foreign corporation before this act can operate. It is then made a North Carolina corporation, not by creation, but by adoption. But this new corporation has a new and distinct entity from the New York corporation. It does not bring the New York corporation into North Carolina; it can not do this, because a corporation can have no legal existence or -authority outside of the State that gives it corporate life, except by the law of comity.
My opinion is that had the plaintiff sued the North Carolina corporation, it would not have been entitled to removal, based on diverse citizenship. But as the plaintiff chose to sue the New York company, the defendant was entitled, ás I think, to an order of removal.
Faibgloth, C. J., also dissents.