Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided June 15, 1932 · Stacy
164 S.E. 341; 203 N.C. 12; 1932 N.C. LEXIS 300 (South Eastern Reporter)

Harris Clay Co. v. Carolina China Clay Co.

Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.

The case turns on whether the action is local or transitory in its nature. If local, the defendants are entitled to have the cause moved to Mitchell County for trial as a matter of right. C. S., 463. If transitory, the motion for change of venue was properly overruled. Causey v. Morris, 195 N. C., 532, 142 S. E., 783.

The action 'is for the recovery of damages and appears to be a transitory one. It sounds in neither ejectment nor replevin; nor is it an action for injury to real property, such as contemplated by the statute above cited. Eames v. Armstrong, 136 N. C., 392, 48 S. E., 769; McIntosh, N. C. Practice & Procedure, 258.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.