Thrush v. Thrush

Plaintiff is not here represented by counsel. No suggestion is made that the consent order signed by Judge Frizzelle puts at rest the validity of the attachment and the service of process.

Defendant asserts that the judgment is erroneous for that personal service of process was ineffective because by public policy he was exempt from such service, and the statute, G.S. 1-440.7, is mandatory in its requirement that publication must begin not later than the thirty-first day after the issuance of the order of attachment; hence, Judge Bundy was without authority, more than eighteen months after the…