Plaintiff asserts that the place of residence of a domesticated foreign corporation is controlled by a determination of where the party has its principal place of business. The parties do not dispute that Guilford County is the location of plaintiff's principal place of business; and plaintiff, relying mainly upon Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Petroleum Transit Co., Inc., 266 N.C. 756, 147 S.E.2d 229 (1966) and Crain Denbo v. Harris Harris Const. Co., 250 N.C. 106, 108 S.E.2d 122 (1959), argues that Guilford County is the proper venue for the trial of this dispute. Our Supreme Court has spoken on several occasions as to the treatment which is to be accorded domesticated foreign corporations.
Code Ann. § 6-702 provides that a motion for a new trial need not be filed as a condition precedent to appeal, need not be transmitted as a part of the record on appeal (if the motion is made), and that it shall not be necessary that the overruling thereof be enumerated as error on appeal. Prior to Hill v. Willis, supra, the Supreme Court decided three appeals from which the overruling of a motion for a new trial was not appealed, yet the court considered enumerations of error on the same questions which were raised in the motion for new trial. Worley v. State, 222 Ga. 319 ( 149 S.E.2d 682); Roach v. State, 221 Ga. 783 ( 147 S.E.2d 229); Dickerson v. Harvey, 221 Ga. 606 ( 146 S.E.2d 310). See in this regard the dissenting opinion of Justice Mobley in Hill v. Willis, supra, p. 269.