Legal Opinion

Harrington v. Rice

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 20, 1957No. 162PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

If in fact the summons and complaint were not served on the feme defendant as prescribed by G.S. 1-94 and G.S. 1-121, the default judgment of 11 September, 1951, is void; and, since the return shows service, the appropriate procedure to set aside the judgment for nonservice was by motion in the cause. Monroe v. Niven, 221 N.C. 362, 20 S.E. 2d 311, and cases cited; Caviness v. Hunt, 180 N.C. 384, 104 S.E. 763; Stocks v. Stocks, 179 N.C. 285, 102 S.E. 306.

The motion and answer thereto raised questions of fact. It was for the court to hear the evidence, find the facts and render judgment. Monroe…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Dobias v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. City of Monroe v. NivenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Caldwell v. . CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Mason and Another v. . MilesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Grimsley v. NelsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1996
  2. Guthrie v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Howard v. BoyceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. Granville Medical Center v. TiptonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. North State Finance Co. v. LeonardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964

37 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