Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. McLeod v. Pearson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 9, 1935PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It must be held, we think, that the purported service of process was not sufficient to bring the defendant into court. Dowling v. Winters, ante, 521; Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283; Graves v. Reidsville, 182 N. C., 330, 109 S. E., 29.

It is provided by C. S., 881, that service of summons and complaint in quo warranto proceedings “may be made by leaving a copy at the last residence or business office of the defendant or defendants, and service so made shall be deemed a legal service.” This, we apprehend, means a true copy of the summons and complaint.

If the copy of summons…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Henderson v. . GrahamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  3. Cook v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  4. Vick v. . FlournoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brantley v. SawyerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  2. State ex rel. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Trust Co. v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API