Legal Opinion

Voehringer v. . Pollock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 2, 1944PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNNY, J.

The appellants contend there was irregularity in the issuance and return of the summons in this action, as well as a defective^ levy of the warrant of attachment.

Under the decisions of this Court, where service is by attachment of property and publication, no summons is required. In such cases it is considered a useless formality to issue a summons and have the sheriff make the return that the defendant is not to be found. Bethell v. Lee, 200 N. C., 755, 158 S. E., 493; Mohn v. Cressey, 193 N. C., 568, 137 S. E., 718; Jenette v. Hovey, 182 N. C., 30, 108 S. E., 301; Mills v. Hansel, 168 N.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  3. Vick v. . FlournoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. Grocery Company v. Bag Company.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  5. White v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Ewing v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Ivester v. MillerDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2008
  3. Perkins v. PerkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. McCoy v. McCoyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Harris v. UphamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

1 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