Reich v. . Mortgage Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Reich v. . Mortgage Corp.

168 S.E. 814, 204 N.C. 790, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 285

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 12, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 814 (Reich v. . Mortgage Corp.) 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

Reich v. . Mortgage Corp., 168 S.E. 814, 204 N.C. 790, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 285 (N.C. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action to recover penalty for usury.

The defendant being a foreign corporation, service of summons was sought to be obtained through the Secretary of State as provided by C. S., 1137.

The defendant entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action for want of proper service.

Upon evidence sufficient to support the findings, the court found "that the defendant owned property and was doing business at, before and since the starting of this suit and the service of said process, in the State of North Carolina," and upon such findings overruled the motion to dismiss. Defendant appeals, assigning errors. Affirmed on authority of Lunceford v. Association, 190 N.C. 314,129 S.E. 805, R. R. v. Cobb, 190 N.C. 375, 129 S.E. 828. See note, Yale Law Journal (April, 1927), page 882.

Affirmed. *Page 791

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

Civil action to recover penalty for usury.

The defendant being a foreign corporation, service of summons was sought to be obtained through the Secretary of State as provided by C. S., 1137.

The defendant entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action for want of proper service.

Upon evidence sufficient to support the findings, the court found "that the defendant owned property and was doing business at, before and since the starting of this suit and the service of said process, in the State of North Carolina," and upon such findings overruled the motion to dismiss. Defendant appeals, assigning errors. Affirmed on authority of Lunceford v. Association, 190 N.C. 314,129 S.E. 805, R. R. v. Cobb, 190 N.C. 375, 129 S.E. 828. See note, Yale Law Journal (April, 1927), page 882.

Affirmed. *Page 791

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.E. 814, 204 N.C. 790, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reich-v-mortgage-corp-nc-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack