Mitchell v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
. Appeal by defendants from Ferguson, J., at April Term, 1915, of HERTFORD. Civil action beard on motion to discharge an attachment and dismiss the action.
Read the full summary
. Appeal by defendants from Ferguson, J., at April Term, 1915, of HERTFORD. Civil action beard on motion to discharge an attachment and dismiss the action. On the hearing, it was made to appear that plaintiff, having a claim against defendants for wrongful injury to his property, instituted an action by issuing a summons against them, returnable to February term of said court, 1915; that on affidavit duly made, averring validity of claim, that defendants were all nonresidents and that they had property within the State, etc., a warrant of attachment was duly issued, returnable to said…
1Opinion of the Court
Hoke, J.,
after stating the case: It was suggested on the argument that the defendants’ appeal might be premature, but our decisions are to the effect that the refusal to dismiss a warrant of attachment is an ap- pealable order, and, unless appealed from, tbe questions involved become res adjudicatei. Judd v. Mining Co., 120 N. C., 397; Sheldon v. Kivett, 110 N. C., 408; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1. On tbe principal question, while it is recognized, as contended by defendant, tbat wben an attachment has been issued it must be followed by service of tbe summons, personally or by publication…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Roulhac v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Sheldon v. . KivettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Judd v. Crawford Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Richard v. MooneyMississippi Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Winder v. . PennimanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
- Durant v. Brown Motor CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928