Legal Opinion

Bank of Pinehurst v. Derby

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 20, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

This case was here before on appeal. Bank v. Derby, 215 N. C., 669.

The plaintiff in its brief says: “It is not questioned that when the complaint on its face does not state a cause of action upon which a warrant of attachment may issue the warrant will be vacated upon *655motion of tbe defendant upon a special appearance entered for tbat purpose. In tbe instant case, however, tbe complaint on its face is subject to no sucb infirmity and contains allegations of fact sufficient to award to tbe plaintiff tbe relief prayed for and to support tbe order of publication and tbe notice of publication, of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Bateman v. . SterrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Patterson v. Durham Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  3. Hicks v. . KearneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Booth v. . HairstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  5. State v. . BrockwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Bolick v. American Barmag Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Lester Brothers, Inc. v. Pope Realty & Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  3. McKinney v. GoinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2025
  4. Wilson Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ret. Sys. Div.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API