Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
88 S.E. 346, 171 N.C. 756, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 164
Opinion
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
Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 88 S.E. 346, 171 N.C. 756, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 164 (N.C. 1916).
88 S.E. 346 (Chancey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McLean v. Matheny
84 S.E.2d 190 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp. v. Grannis Bros.
58 S.E.2d 748 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Lee v. . Hoff
19 S.E.2d 858 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)