
    14017
    MARCH v. UNION TRUST CO. OF MARYLAND ET AL.
    
    (179 S. E., 34)
    
      
      Messrs. Haynsworth & Haynsworth, for appellant,
    
      Messrs. S. H. McGhee and Norman A. Harrison, for respondent,
    March 14, 1935.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

This appeal is from an order of Judge Eeatherstone which denied a motion to set aside the service of the. summons and complaint made on the ground that the person served was not when served, and is not now, the agent of the appellant, and the appellant was not then, and is not now and never has been, doing business in this State.

It is the settled rule of this Court that, if the Circuit Court finds, as matter of fact, that the foreign corporation is doing business in this State, and that the person served is the agent of the corporation sued, such finding is binding on this Court, unless there! is no evidence to support such finding. The question then becomes one of law. Lipe v. C., C. & O. R. Co., 123 S. C., 515, 522, 116 S. E., 101, 30 A. L. R., 248; Pollock v. Carolina 'Interstate B. & L. Ass’n, 48 S. C., 65, 73, 25 S. E., 977, 59 Am. St. Rep., 695; Bass v. Amer. Products Exp. & Imp. Corp., 124 S. C., 346, 117 S. E., 594, 30 A. L. R., 168; Abbeville Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Western Elec. Supply Co., 61 S. C., 361, 39 S. E., 559, 55 L. R. A., 146, 85 Am. St. Rep., 890; Jenkins v. Penn Bridge Co., 73 S. C., 526, 528, 53 S. E., 991; McSwain v. Adams Grain & Provision Co., 93 S. C., 103, 76 S. E., 117, Ann. Cas., 1914-D, 981.

In the present case the evidence is contradictory. We are unable to say there was no evidence to sustain the finding of the Circuit Judge.

The appellant relies on the opinion of this Court in the case of Dyar v. Georgia Power Company, 173 S. C., 527, 176 S. E., 711.

In that case this Court recognized the rule that, in order to obtain jurisdiction of a foreign corporation in this State, two things are essential: That the foreign corporation is doing business in this State when action is brought; that the person served with the process is then the agent of the corporation; but the majority of the Court found that, in that case, there is no evidence to show that these conditions were complied with. Hence, as a matter of law, this Court could decide the issue. This Court cannot say here that there is no evidence to sustain the order of Judge Eeatherstone.

The appeal is dismissed, and the order appealed from is affirmed. Let it be reported.

Messrs. Justices Stabler and Carter and Messrs. Acting Associate Justices Mann and Philip H. Stoll concur.  