Anglin-Stone v. Curtis

WYNN, Judge.

Defendant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in finding under Rule 60(b) that plaintiff had obtained sufficient service of process over him. However for controlling reasons set forth in Metcalf v. Palmer, 46 N.C. App. 622, 265 S.E.2d 484 (1980) and Berger v. Berger, 67 N.C. App. 591, 313 S.E.2d 825 (1984), we must dismiss this appeal as interlocutory.

Plaintiff brought this automobile negligence action against “Scott Curtis”; in fact, defendant’s name is “Curtis Scott.” Apparently, the confusion in inverting defendant’s name originated with the accident report which on one…