State ex rel. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Smith

210 N.C. 582
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 14, 1936·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is apparent that the summons was properly issued, under seal, and prosecution bond and verified complaint duly filed. While the copies delivered to the Insurance Commissioner for the defendant did not show the name of the clerk, the seal of the court, nor the name of plaintiff’s attorney, these omissions were supplied by proper order nunc pro tunc, and thus any defect in the service was cured. McLeod v. Pearson, 208 N. C., 539; Casualty Co. v. Green, 200 N. C., 535; Calmes v. Lambert, 153 N. C., 248; Henderson v. Graham, 84 N. C., 496.

The findings and order of the clerk, affirmed by the judge on appeal, sustain the judgment.

Affirmed.

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

State ex rel. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Smith, 210 N.C. 582 (N.C. 1936).

210 N.C. 582 (State ex rel. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henderson v. . Graham
84 N.C. 496 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Calmes v. . Lambert
69 S.E. 138 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
State Ex Rel. McLeod v. Pearson
181 S.E. 753 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Green
157 S.E. 797 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)