Whitehurst v. . Anderson

44 S.E.2d 358, 228 N.C. 787, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 536
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 8, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 44 S.E.2d 358 (Whitehurst v. . Anderson) 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
Whitehurst v. . Anderson, 44 S.E.2d 358, 228 N.C. 787, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 536 (N.C. 1947).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe question posed for decision is tbis: Where a summons in proper form, together witb an order extending tbe time for filing complaint, is served on tbe defendants, but such order does not state tbe nature and purpose of tbe suit as provided by Gr. S. 1-121, is tbe service fatally defective and therefore insufficient to bring tbe defendants into court, or is such defect a mere irregularity subject to correction by amendment?

Tbe Court, one member not sitting, being evenly divided in opinion as to tbe correct answer, tbe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, accordant witb tbe usual practice in such cases, and stands as tbe decision in tbis case, without becoming a precedent. Toxey v. Meggs, 216 N. C., 798, 4 S. E. (2d), 513; Howard v. Coach Co., 216 N. C., 799, 4 S. E. (2d), 616.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Parrish v. PIEDMONT PUBLISHING COMPANY
157 S.E.2d 334 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Roberts v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Asheville, Inc.
124 S.E.2d 105 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
State v. Smith
90 S.E.2d 328 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 S.E.2d 358, 228 N.C. 787, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehurst-v-anderson-nc-1947.