Legal Opinion

Byrd v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1962No. 305PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

The court erred in overruling the motion. Plaintiff undertook to serve summons on Bergsma under the provisions of G.S. 1-105 and G.S. 1-106. These statutes provide generally for substituted service of process upon nonresident drivers of motor vehicles. “Substituted service of process was unknown to common law, but depends upon statutory authorization. And a strict compliance with the provisions of such statute must be shown in order to support a judgment based on substituted service.” Hodges v. Insurance Co., 232 N.C. 475, 476, 61 S.E. 2d 372.

An airplane is not a “motor vehicle” within the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McBoyle v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Inc. v. Wake CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. Hodges v. Home Ins. Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. In Re WatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Matter of ArthurSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. Duke Power Company v. ClaytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Sink v. EasterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. Sayles Biltmore Bleacheries, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

7 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