Ange v. Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World

Waleer, J., after stating the case: It is provided by statute that an action against a corporation chartered by another State, country, or government may be brought in the Superior Court of any county in which the cause of action arose, or in which it usually did business, or in which it has property, or in which the plaintiffs, or either of them, reside. Revisal, sec. 423. There are four cases, therefore,. in which the place of trial may be determined differently, and it is possible, under this provision, that the action may brought in any one of four counties, at the election of the plaintiff, as the cases are stated alternatively. Under this view of the law, as plaintiff resided in Martin County and the cause of action arose therein, he could have sued in that county, but was not bound to do so, if the defendant either had property or rrsually did business in Washington or any other county. Our opinion, upon the facts stated, is that it usually did business in Washington County, if also it did not have property there. It had a lodge there, which, according to the accepted definition, means the meeting room of an association, as well as the regularly constituted body of members which meets therein, for the transaction of its business or the conduct of its affairs. The lodge collected the fees due to the defendant, as “the head lodge.” The regular collection of fees due *42 from members of the local lodge clearly and unmistakably indicates the transaction of business, which was not only “usual,” but continuous in its nature, and necessarily so. It appears that the lodge admitted persons to membership in defendant corporation, collected their dues, and presumably conducted such business as is usually characteristic of such institutions. Why such transactions are not “usual business” within the meaning and intent of our statute we are unable to see. Two cases seem to be direct authorities for this view of the facts: International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth, 147 Ky., 655, 666; Inter. Text-book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U. S., 91, 104, In the former case, the agent of the plaintiff took orders for the sale of goods and collected money due his employer, and in the latter plaintiff conducted a correspondence school at Scranton, Pa., by selling scholarships in Kansas (and other States) and collecting fees from its pupils, though it had no office in Kansas, but carried on its business solely by correspondence. It was held in each case that the plaintiff was conducting business in the State where the collections were made, and that it was continuous and, of course, “usual.” The Court in the Pigg case held tliat upon any reasonable interpretation of the statute, the company, both at the date of the contract sued on and when the action was brought, must be held as “doing business” in Kansas. It had an agent in the State, who was employed to secure scholars for the schools conducted by correspondence from Scranton, and to receive and forward any money obtained from such scholars. Its transactions in Kansas, by means of which it secured applications from numerous persons for scholarships, were not single or casual transactions, such as might be deemed incidental to its general business as a foreign corporation, but were parts of its regular business continuously conducted in many States for the benefit of its correspondence schools; that while the Supreme Court of Kansas has distinctly held that the statute did not embrace single transactions that were only incidentally necessary to the business of a foreign corporation, it also adjudged that the business done by the text-book company in Kansas was not of that kind, but indicated a purpose to regularly transact its business from time to time in Kansas, and therefore it was to be regarded as doing business in that State, within the meaning of the statute; and that it “was the intention of the Legislature that the State should reach every continuous exercise of a foreign franchise,” and that it should apply even where the business of the foreign corporation was “purely interstate commerce.” The Court further said that the construction given to the statute by the Kansas court was correct. The two eases are parallel with this one, and the same rule of construction must govern. If it was “usual business” to receive orders for goods and collect the money due for them, it is equally “usual business” to receive members into the lodge and collect their dues or *43 fees, and, it may be added, to sell them insurance, if desired. Put there are other reasons for holding that defendant was conducting its usual business in Washington County, which need not be mentioned, as we have adequately disposed of the question raised by the exception to the ruling, which is reviewable in this Court. Cedar Works v. Lumber Co., 161 N. C., 603. We, therefore, conclude that the venue was correctly laid in Washington County, and that the court erred in removing the case. Reversed.