Philpott v. Kerns

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Philpott v. Kerns

197 S.E.2d 595, 18 N.C. App. 663, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1972

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 11, 1973

DocketNo. 7314SC342

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 595 (Philpott v. Kerns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philpott v. Kerns, 197 S.E.2d 595, 18 N.C. App. 663, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1972 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BALEY, Judge.

Statutory provisions prescribing the manner of service of process must be strictly complied with, and, unless the procedural requirements are followed, there is no valid service. Distributors v. McAndrews, 270 N.C. 91, 153 S.E. 2d 770; 62 Am. Jur. 2d, Process, § 68, p. 848.

It seems clear that the summons issued in this case was defective on its face in that it fails to designate the defendants as parties to be served and fails to command the process officer to summon them. The precise point in question was determined adversely to plaintiff in Distributors v. McAndrews, supra.

The enlargement of time obtained by defendants did not constitute a general appearance to confer jurisdiction over the persons. Leasing, Inc. v. Brown, 14 N.C. App. 383, 188 S.E. 2d 574; Williams v. Hartis, 18 N.C. App. 89, 195 S.E. 2d 806.

Plaintiff in her brief for the first time suggests amendment of process under Rule 4(i), Rules of Civil Procedure. Any amendments of process at this time would prejudice substantial rights of the defendants.

Judgment entered in the court below is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

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