Legal Opinion

Pierce v. . Mallard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 13, 1929PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

We think there was no substantial irregularity as would make tbe attachment void. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that for minor defects amendments can be made. Askew v. Stevenson, 61 N. C., 288; Best v. Mortgage Co., 128 N. C., 351; May v. Menzies, 186 N. C., 144; Thornburg v. Burton, ante, 193; C. S., 547-9.

The main question involved in the controversy: Should the proceedings in attachment be docketed in the “Becord of Lis Pendens” of Duplin County, C. S., 500, 501, 502, 503? We think not. It was docketed in the clerk’s office of Duplin County in accordance with C. S., 807, in the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Best v. British & American Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  2. Askew v. . StevensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1867

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. . KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. Threlkeld v. Malcragson Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. KnoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API