TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Everitt v. Austin Bros.

L. E. Everitt v. Austin Brothers.

Everitt v. Austin Bros., 86 S.E. 523 (N.C. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 13, 1915
Judges
AlleN
Citations
86 S.E. 523169 N.C. 6221915 N.C. LEXIS 273
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Process — Nonresidents — Summons — Publication — Property — Courts — Jurisdiction. A valid service of summons by publication cannot be made on a nonresident defendant unless he has property within the State which is brought under the control of the court; and where in attachment proceedings it appears that no property of the defendant has been reached or levied on, and the defendant has entered a special appearance for the purpose, his motion to dismiss will be allowed.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from Carter, J., at the May Term, 1915, of Edgecombe. Action to recover damáges for personal injury. Tbe defendants are nonresidents and no process bas been served on them. A warrant of attachment has been issued and a copy of the same was served on the board of commissioners of the county of Edgecombe, but there is no allegation that the county of Edgecombe is indebted to the defendant. The defendants entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action on several grounds assigned in a written motion. The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — AlleN

AlleN, J.

When there is no personal service of process upon a nonresident defendant, ■ the substituted service by publication is effectual only where property in the State is brought under the control of the court and subject to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714 ;

Winfree v. Bagley, 102 N. C., 517 ), and as it does not appear that any property of the defendants has been reached or levied upon by the attachment issued in the action, and as there is no allegation that the county of Edgecombe, upon whom the warrant of attachment was served, is indebted to the defendant, the judgment of his Honor must be affirmed. There are other irregularities which it is not necessary to consider.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1919: 11924: 21927: 31938: 119192026peak 1927 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walton v. Walton100 S.E. 176 (N.C. 1919)
  2. Stevens v. Cecil199 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1938)
  3. Willis v. Anderson124 S.E. 834 (N.C. 1924)
  4. Mohn v. Cressey137 S.E. 718 (N.C. 1927)
  5. Brann v. Hanes140 S.E. 292 (N.C. 1927)
  6. Bridger v. Mitchell121 S.E. 661 (N.C. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Stevens v. Cecil199 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1938)
  2. Brann v. Hanes140 S.E. 292 (N.C. 1927)
  3. Adams v. Packer138 S.E. 405 (N.C. 1927)
  4. Mohn v. Cressey137 S.E. 718 (N.C. 1927)
  5. Willis v. Anderson124 S.E. 834 (N.C. 1924)
  6. Bridger v. Mitchell121 S.E. 661 (N.C. 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) 3,048
Winfree v. Bagley, 9 S.E. 198 (N.C. 1889) 28

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list