Legal Opinion

Whitener v. Whitener

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 6, 1982No. 8129DC381PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Shaffer v. HeitnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. Balcon, Inc. v. SadlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  4. Holt v. HoltCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Allen & O'Hara, Inc. v. WeingartCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Preferred CreditSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2006
  2. QUB Studios, LLC v. MarshCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API