Grant v. . Burgwyn

79 N.C. 513
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1878·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Faircloth, J.

The defendants entered a special appearance and moved: (1) To dismiss the action because there *514 was no service of the summons returnable to Fall Term, 1877, and no alias issued. (2) To dissolve the attachment for want of sufficient affidavits. The attachment issued before said Fall Term. In regard to the first motion His Honor after setting out the evidence finds as a fact, that service was had by publication, and on examination of the whole record we think his finding was correct and his refusal of the motion is sustained. In regard to the second motion we are of the same opinion. The affidavit of June the 18th is in the very words of the statute and that must be sufficient. In looking at the whole record it appears "that the statute on this subject has been substantially complied with.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Grant v. . Burgwyn, 79 N.C. 513 (N.C. 1878).

79 N.C. 513 (Grant v. . Burgwyn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Page v. . McDonald
74 S.E. 642 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Best v. British & American Co.
38 S.E. 923 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)