
    Yadkin Navigation Company v. Benton.
    From Cabarrus
    Some actions, local in their nature, and some transitory ones, must be brought where the cause of action arises ; but with these specified exceptions, no action can be brought in a county in which neither •' party resides.
    
      Semble, the residence of a corporation aggregate, is not to be const: dered co-extensive with the limits of the State.
    This was a motion for judgment against a stockholder in the Yadkin Navigation Company on instalments unpaid, pursuant to the acts of Assembly. The notice required by the acts was made returnable to Cabarrus Superior Court. Tiie Defendant admitted the service of the notice, and pleaded in abatement, that neither the Plaintiff nor Defendant resided in Cabarrus. To this plea the Plaintiff demurred, and the Court sustained the demurrer. The Defendant answered over, and final judgment was rendered against him, from which lie appealed.
   Tayuor, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The act of incorporation, authorising the Plaintiffs to recover judgment in any Court of competent jurisdiction, renders it necessary to ascertain, whether the Superior Court of Cabarrus became possessed of it in consequence of any act of Assembly. The first act on the subject, 1777, sec. 9 and 10, provides, that where the parties live in different districts,' and the debt, or dc-maud, amounts to £50, the suit shall be brought in either district at the option of the Plaintiff. Here the case states that neither Plaintiff nor Defendant lived in the county of Cabarrus ; consequently, that Court cannot entertain jurisdiction of the suit. Some actions, local in their nature, and some transitory ones, must be brought where the cause of action arises ; but with these specified exceptions, no action can be brought in a district, (or county) in which neithep party resides. The question, whether a corporation can have a residence in a county, so as to bring a suit there against an individual who resides in a different county, is not made in this case, and therefore no opinion is given upon it: but the notion of its residence being co-extensive with the State, and being therefore competent to sue in any county, seems to bo at variance with the authorities cited in 5 Cranch. 61. The demurrer must be overruled, and the suit abated..  