Mullen v. Norfolk & Carolina Canal Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
At’TioN, tried at Fall Term, 1898, of UaM-dkN Superior Court, before Graves, J., and a jury, the purpose of the action being to recover damages for injury to crops growing on plaintiff's farms lying upon the sweat or leakage ditches of the defendant company, because of its failure to keep the ditches in proper condition to carry off the water turned into the same and the consequent Hooding of the lands.
Read the full summary
At’TioN, tried at Fall Term, 1898, of UaM-dkN Superior Court, before Graves, J., and a jury, the purpose of the action being to recover damages for injury to crops growing on plaintiff's farms lying upon the sweat or leakage ditches of the defendant company, because of its failure to keep the ditches in proper condition to carry off the water turned into the same and the consequent Hooding of the lands. The defendant is a non-resident corporation, and service was made upon it by attaching its property and by subsequent publication of summons. The defendant appeared specially and moved to…
1Opinion of the Court
Clakk, J.:
It was strenously argued that the defendant could not be brought into court by attachment and publication because the Act of 1891, eh. 120, had provided, as a substitute therefor, service by mailing the summons “ to the Sheriff’ or other process officer of the county and State where the defendant resides.” This, it was contended, was at the time this action was begun the exclusive mode of service upon non-residents, unless it had appeared that service could not be had in that mode. We think that mailing process to the Sheriff of the county and State where the non-resident resides,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Winfree v. . BagleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Price v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Wilson v. Louis Cook Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Mullen v. Norfolk & North Carolina Canal Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fisher, Sons & Co. v. CrowleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1905
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. ClarkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
- Vanover v. VanoverWyoming Supreme Court · 1957
- Chicago Building & Manufacturing Co. v. PewthersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1901
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. ReedSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.