Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Nichols
142 S.E. 8, 195 N.C. 858, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 230
Opinion
The defendant appeals, relying on Pass v. Elias, 192 N. C., 497; 135 S. E., 291. But the defect in the service of summons was cured by a general appearance. Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175; Wooten v. Cunningham, 171 N. C., 123, 88 S. E., 1; Currie v. Mining Co., 157 N. C., 209, 72 S. E., 980; Scott v. Life Asso., 137 N. C., 515, 50 S. E., 221.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Nichols, 142 S.E. 8, 195 N.C. 858, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 230 (N.C. 1928).
142 S.E. 8 (Greenville Banking & Trust Co. v. Nichols) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wooten v. . Cunningham
88 S.E. 1 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Motor Co. v. . Reaves
114 S.E. 175 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Currie v. Golconda Mining & Milling Co.
72 S.E. 980 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Scott v. . Life Association
50 S.E. 221 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Pass v. . Elias
135 S.E. 291 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Scott v. Life Ass'n
137 N.C. 515 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)