Whitener v. Whitener
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Judge.
The plaintiff first contends that the district court has jurisdiction because this is an in rem or quasi in rem action. Plaintiff argues this is so because there is a debt owed by persons in North Carolina to the parties to this suit. We do not believe this is an action in rem or quasi in rem. An in rem action deals with a proceeding regarding a thing. An action is quasi in rem if a thing which is not the subject of an action is attached or garnished in an ancillary proceeding in order to make it subject to the judgment against the defendant. See Holt v. Holt, 41 N.C. App. 344,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Balcon, Inc. v. SadlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Holt v. HoltCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Allen & O'Hara, Inc. v. WeingartCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
3Cited by2 opinions
- Skinner v. Preferred CreditSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
- QUB Studios, LLC v. MarshCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018