Legal Opinion

Ryan v. . Batdorf

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 23, 1945PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.

It has been held by this Court that “Tbe character of a process purporting to be original is not changed by an endorsement of tbe word ‘alias.’ Mintz v. Frink, 217 N. C., 101, 6 S. E. (2d), 802. Tbe character of tbe process purporting to be original may be changed, however, when tbe process is made referable to tbe original writ, and sued out as required by G. S., 1-95. It is said in Hatch v. R. R., 183 N. C., 617, 112 S. E., 529, quoting from Chitty’s Practice: ‘If it be necessary to continue tbe first writ of summons, then an alias or pluries may be issued into tbe same or another county;…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hatch v. Alamance Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Hatch v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Mintz v. . FrinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. Neely v. . MinusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  5. State Ex Rel. Battle v. BairdSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Williams v. BraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Webb v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Morton v. Blue Ridge Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  4. Farr v. City of Rocky MountCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  5. Perkins v. PerkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

3 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