Legal Opinion
Moore v. . R. R.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 5, 1872PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg has no right to issue a summons returnable to the Superior Court of Cabarrus. Howerton v. Tate,66 N.C. 431; Laws 1868-'69, ch. 76, sec. 2.
The defendant nevertheless appeared and answered in bar. We are of opinion that the irregularity was thereby waived. If no summons at all had been issued, the filing of a complaint and answer would have constituted a cause in Court.
Judgment reversed, and case remanded, to be proceeded in according to law.
PER CURIAM. Reversed.
Cited: Fleming v. Patterson, 99 N.C. 405; Cherry v. Lilly, 113 N.C. 28;Davison v. Land…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- A. L. Webb & Sons v. HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Fleming v. . PattersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State on Relation of W. H. Howerton v. . S. McD. TateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- Marks v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- McClure v. . FellowsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Economy Electric Co. v. Automatic Electric Power & Light PlantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- In re K.J.L.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008