Burwell Parham v. . Lafferty

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Burwell Parham v. . Lafferty

76 N.C. 383

DecidedJanuary 5, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 76 N.C. 383 (Burwell Parham v. . Lafferty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burwell Parham v. . Lafferty, 76 N.C. 383 (N.C. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Eairoloth, J.

It would be tedious to mention all the defects and irregularities of the proceedings on which the judgment was rendered in this case. There was no personal serviee of the summons nor any by publication as required by C. C. P. ch. 17, § 84. The order for publication was foi-four weeks whereas the statute requires six weeks and although it appears from the affidavit that the residence of the defendant was known, no order was made to deposit a copy of the summons and complaint in the post office directed to the defendant as required by said section nor was such deposit in fact made. The case of Spiers v. Halsted, 71 *384 N. C. 209, is decisive of this case. This Court bas so repeatedly defined the modes of proceeding in attachments that it is not necessary to 'repeat them here.

The defendant's motion is to vacate said judgment-which His Honor refused. We think it should have been allowed.

There is error.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Eairoloth, J.

It would be tedious to mention all the defects and irregularities of the proceedings on which the judgment was rendered in this case. There was no personal serviee of the summons nor any by publication as required by C. C. P. ch. 17, § 84. The order for publication was foi-four weeks whereas the statute requires six weeks and although it appears from the affidavit that the residence of the defendant was known, no order was made to deposit a copy of the summons and complaint in the post office directed to the defendant as required by said section nor was such deposit in fact made. The case of Spiers v. Halsted, 71 *384 N. C. 209, is decisive of this case. This Court bas so repeatedly defined the modes of proceeding in attachments that it is not necessary to 'repeat them here.

The defendant's motion is to vacate said judgment-which His Honor refused. We think it should have been allowed.

There is error.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.C. 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burwell-parham-v-lafferty-nc-1877.