N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-36 with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-2(2) (using “contract of hire”). As such, we do not interject our own view of the legislature’s intended meaning and instead apply existing precedent and the plain language of Section 97-36 to this question of first impression. See Correll v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992) (“The legislative purpose of a statute is first ascertained by examining the statute’s plain language.”). Further, while the Larson’s passage cites other state court decisions for the notion that a situs is not changed by contract modification, other jurisdictions have recognized explicitly that a contract modified within state borders confers jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kilburn v. Grande Corp., 287 F.2d 371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 1961) (<HOLDING>); Kuzel v. Aetna Ins. Co., 650 S.W.2d 193,
holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment holding that no reporters record was required in suit to recover damages for breach of employment contract because the claim for damages was liquidated and proved by the employment contract attached to the petition holding that louisiana had jurisdiction over a modified contract of employment where the original employment contract was formed in texas but additional consideration for employment was negotiated in louisiana holding maryland had jurisdiction where the original contract of hire was formed in texas but a later contract modification was agreed to in maryland holding that severance pay policy was part of employment contract