Legal Opinion

Mohn v. . Cressey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 20, 1927PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

The basic reason of the motions to dismiss the action is the alleged want of jurisdiction. Ered L. Cressey says: (1) That he is the only defendant; that the summons, which was issued by a justice of the peace in Craven County and addressed to an officer of Edgecombe County, is void, and that the court had no jurisdiction of his person; (2) that no publication of the summons has been made; and (3) that the Farmers Banking and Trust Company, whose funds were attached, is not a party to the action. The Citizens National Bank of Boston rests its motion substantially on the ground first above set…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hornthal v. . BurwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  2. Winfree v. . BagleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  3. Grocery Company v. Bag Company.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  4. Best v. British & American Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  5. Jenette v. Hovey & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Chinnis v. . CobbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Lovegrove v. LovegroveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Edwards v. Brown's Cabinets & Millwork, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Bethell v. . LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  5. Voehringer v. . PollockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944

2 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