Burton v. Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtConnor, J.
At tbe expiration of tbe time prescribed in tbe order for tbe publication of summons in tbis action, tbe court having found from tbe affidavit of tbe printer (C. S., 489(2), that notice of tbe summons bad been duly published as required by C. S., 485, tbe defendant, S. R. Smith, was then in court, tbe service of tbe summons was completed, and tbe Superior Court of New Hanover County bad jurisdiction of defendant. C. S., 487. Before rendering judgment by default, at February Term, 1925, tbe court adjudged that tbe summons bad been duly served. Hyman v. Jarnigan, 65 N. C., 96. Tbe principle…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Goldey v. Morning NewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Harter v. KernochanSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Southern Pacific Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Howard v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Austin v. GaganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1889
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Harrell v. . WelsteadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Harmon v. HarmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- In Re PrevattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- City of Washington v. HodgesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Town of Asheboro v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.