Legal Opinion
Smith v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided December 21, 1977No. 7728SC85PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
The court correctly concluded that the summonses were insufficient to make Pacific Intermountain Express Company a party to the lawsuit. Russell v. Manufacturing Co., 266 N.C. 531, 146 S.E. 2d 459 (1966); Wiles v. Construction Co., 34 N.C. App. 157, 237 S.E. 2d 297 (1977).
The question presented is whether defendant may now avail itself of the defense of lack of jurisdiction. Rule 12 (b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure gave defendant two options. It could have waited and raised the defense of lack of jurisdiction in its answer. It did not do so. Instead, it promptly exercised its…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Edwin Kerr v. Compagnie De Ultramar and Transmar Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- David Neifeld v. Meyer Steinberg. David Neifeld v. Meyer SteinbergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
- Wyrough & Loser, Inc. v. Pelmor Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
- Simms v. MASON'S STORES, INC.(NC-1)Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Russell v. BEA STAPLE MANUFACTURING COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Swenson v. ThibautCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- Smith v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978