Dowling v. . Winters
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- Franklin v. Standard Cellulose Products, Inc. (N.C. 1964)
- Godwin v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Company (N.C. 1963)
- Gregory v. White (District Court, W.D. South Carolina 1957)
- Fazio ex rel. Fazio v. American Automobile Insurance Co. (District Court, W.D. Louisiana 1955)
- Walton v. Stephens (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1954)
- Hendrix v. Jenkins (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1954)
- Ewing v. Thompson (N.C. 1951)
- Wittman v. Hanson (D. Minn. 1951)
- Knoop v. Anderson (District Court, N.D. Iowa 1947)
- Warner v. Maddox (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1946)
- Propst v. Hughes Trucking Co. (N.C. 1943)
- Harris v. Owens, Admr. (Ohio 1943)
- Green v. Brinegar (Iowa 1940)
- Donnelly v. Carpenter, Exrx. (Ohio Ct. App. 1936)
- Vecchione v. Palmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1936)
- Alberts v. . Alberts (N.C. 1940)
- Downing v. Schwenck (Neb. 1940)
- New York Life Insurance v. Lassiter (N.C. 1936)
- Cotton v. . Fisheries Products Co. (N.C. 1919)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff is a nonresident; the defendant, a nonresident executor of a nonresident decedent; the cause of action, transitory, growing out of a motor vehicle accident or collision, occurring on a public highway in this State. Plaintiff alleges she was riding as a guest •of defendant’s testate at the time of the injury.
Is service of summons through the Commissioner of Revenue, as provided by O. S., 491 (a), for service of process on nonresident operators of motor vehicles on the public highways of this State, sufficient to bring the defendant into court in the instant case so as to confer jurisdiction •over the person of the defendant? The answer is, No. Smith v. Haughton, 206 N. C., 587, 174 S. E., 506.
It is provided by the statute in question that a nonresident who .accepts the benefits of our laws by operating a motor vehicle on the qrablic highways of this State shall be deemed to have appointed the *523 State Commissioner of Bevenue “bis true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served all summonses or other lawful process in any action or proceeding against him, growing out of any accident or collision in which said nonresident may be involved by reason of the operation by him, for him, or under his control or direction, express or implied, of a motor vehicle on such public highway of this State,” etc. Then follows provision as to how service may be obtained through the office of Commissioner of Eevenue. The validity of the act was upheld in Ashley v. Brown, 198 N. C., 369, 151 S. E., 725; Bigham, v. Foor, 201 N. C., 14, 158 S. E., 548.
It will be observed the statute makes no provision for service of process upon the executor, administrator, or personal representative of the nonresident motorist, who, if living, might have been served with process under the act. Nor is it provided that such “appointment” shall be irrevocable.
In considering a similar statute, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that it did not provide for service of process upon the executor, administrator, or personal representative of a deceased nonresident, who, in his lifetime, had operated a motor vehicle on the highways of Wisconsin, but who died prior to service of summons through the designated state official. State ex rel. Ledin v. Davison, 216 Wis., 216, 96 A. L. R., 589. The language of our statute suggests a like interpretation.
It is also the general holding that an appointment or agency, unless it be a power coupled with an interest, is terminated by the death of the principal. Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N. C., 90, 50 S. E., 592; Wainwright v. Massenburg, 129 N. C., 46, 39 S. E., 725.
The rule that death revokes a simple agency was held to preclude substituted service in case of death of the defendant, a nonresident, under a provision making the commissioner agent for the acceptance of process in Lepre v. Trust Co., 11 N. J. Misc. R., 887, 168 Atl., 858.
The motion to dismiss was properly allowed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.