Legal Opinion

Groce v. . Groce

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 9, 1938PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

Tbe record contains no averment, by affidavit or otherwise, that tbe defendants “cannot, after due diligence, be found in tbe State.” Denton v. Vassiliades, 212 N. C., 513, 193 S. E., 737. Tbis is an essential requirement to obtain service of summons by publication, C. S., 484, and it must be made to appear “to tbe satisfaction of tbe court.” Bethell v. Lee, 200 N. C., 755, 158 S. E., 493; Grocery Co. v. Bag Co., 142 N. C., 174, 55 S. E., 90; Wheeler v. Cobb, 75 N. C., 21. It will not suffice simply to say tbe defendants are nonresidents of tbe State. Davis v. Davis, 179 N. C.,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Fowler v. FowlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Wheeler v. . CobbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  3. Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. Fowler v. . FowlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Downing v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Powell v. . TurpinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  2. Board of Com'rs of Roxboro v. BumpassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  3. Casey v. . BarkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  4. Rodriguez v. . RodriguezSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. Temple v. TempleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

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

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

Powered by the Exa API