Legal Opinion

Four County Agricultural Credit Corp. v. Satterfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 16, 1940PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

The objection to the jurisdiction, since the defect does not appear on the face of the complaint (O. S., 511), but concerns the issuing and service of summons (chapter 81, Public Laws 1939), should have been made by motion to dismiss, under a special appearance. Treated as such (compare Smith v. Haughton, 206 N. C., 587, 174 S. E., 506), the plea is not good, since the allegations are sufficient to support an action for conversion of the property. But defendants did not protect themselves by a special appearance or confine the demurrer to an objection to the jurisdiction. They demurred also…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Nowell v. BasnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  2. Bailey v. Jackson-Campbell Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Motor Co. v. . ReavesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  4. Nowell v. . BasnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  5. Womble v. . LeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. In Re BlalockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Dellinger v. BollingerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Wall v. Colvard, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  4. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Loft Apartments Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Williams v. . CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API