Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/Moore v. . R. R.

Moore v. . R. R.

67 N.C. 209
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 67 N.C. 209 (Moore v. . R. R.) 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
Moore v. . R. R., 67 N.C. 209 (N.C. 1872).

Opinion

The Clerk of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg has no right to issue a summons returnable to the Superior Court of Cabarrus. Howerton v. Tate,66 N.C. 431; Laws 1868-'69, ch. 76, sec. 2.

The defendant nevertheless appeared and answered in bar. We are of opinion that the irregularity was thereby waived. If no summons at all had been issued, the filing of a complaint and answer would have constituted a cause in Court.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded, to be proceeded in according to law.

PER CURIAM. Reversed.

Cited: Fleming v. Patterson, 99 N.C. 405; Cherry v. Lilly, 113 N.C. 28;Davison v. Land Co., 118 N.C. 369; Webb v. Hicks, 125 N.C. 205;McClure v. Fellows, 131 N.C. 510; Harris v. Bennett, 160 N.C. 342.

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

Related

In re K.J.L.
670 S.E.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2008)
Economy Electric Co. v. Automatic Electric Power & Light Plant
118 S.E. 3 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Harris v. . Bennett
76 S.E. 217 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
McClure v. . Fellows
42 S.E. 951 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 N.C. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-r-r-nc-1872.