Legal Opinion

Bulluck v. . Haley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 19, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J\,

after stating the case: The first assignment of error cannot be sustained. Interveners in attachment may contest with the plaintiff the issue of their ownership of the property, but not the regularity of the attachment or the validity of the seizure. Feed Co. v. Feed Co., 182 N. C., 690, 109 S. E., 881; Forbis v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 403, 81 S. E., 599; Bank v. Furniture Co., 120 N. C., 475, 26 S. E., 927.

The second assignment of error is equally untenable. No part of the property was sold as provided by C. S., 812. The intervener, of its own volition, after obtaining…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. First National Bank of Springfield v. Asheville Furniture & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  2. Roseman Feed Co. v. Nashville Grain & Feed Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Forbis v. Piedmont Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Saliba v. . Mother AgnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Harrison v. HarrisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960

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

Powered by the Exa API