Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

88 S.E. 346, 171 N.C. 756, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 164

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 29, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 346 (Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.) 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

Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 88 S.E. 346, 171 N.C. 756, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 164 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

*757 PER CubiaM.

Allowing tbe amendment to the summons was a matter witbin the sound discretion of the judge. The summons had been served on the agent of the Norfolk and Western Railway. The original summons was directed, to the Norfolk and Western Railroad. His Honor very properly allowed the amendment. As the court ordered an alias summons, no question of jurisdiction or venue arises now. The order amending summons- and ordering an alias is not appealable. -

Appeal dismissed..

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

*757 PER CubiaM.

Allowing tbe amendment to the summons was a matter witbin the sound discretion of the judge. The summons had been served on the agent of the Norfolk and Western Railway. The original summons was directed, to the Norfolk and Western Railroad. His Honor very properly allowed the amendment. As the court ordered an alias summons, no question of jurisdiction or venue arises now. The order amending summons- and ordering an alias is not appealable. -

Appeal dismissed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 346, 171 N.C. 756, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chancey-v-norfolk-western-railway-co-nc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack