History
  • No items yet
midpage
Grant v. . Harrell
109 N.C. 78
N.C.
1891
Check Treatment

In a special proceeding, specified in the complaint in this action, it appears, by the return of the summons in that proceeding, that the same was duly served upon the defendants therein named; whereas, in fact, as the plaintiffs allege, that summons never was served. In that special proceeding a final judgment was entered, of which the plaintiffs complain, and the purpose of this action is to have the same set aside and declared void, upon the ground that the summons mentioned was never served, and hence the court had no jurisdiction of the parties named therein as defendants. The court below, "being of opinion that a motion in the cause is the proper remedy for the plaintiffs' alleged (79) grievance," gave judgment dismissing the action, and the plaintiffs, having excepted, appealed to this Court. In view of a multitude of decisions of this Court, it is too clear to admit of serious question that the court properly dismissed the action upon the ground that the plaintiffs' remedy is by motion in the cause. Carter v.Rountree, ante, 29.

DEFENDANT'S APPEAL.

The defendant's appeal is disposed of by what we have said in plaintiffs' appeal.

Affirmed.

Cited: Rackley v. Roberts, 147 N.C. 204; Harris v. Bennett, 160 N.C. 345;Massie v. Hainey, 165 N.C. 179; Starnes v. Thompson, 173 N.C. 468.

Case Details

Case Name: Grant v. . Harrell
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Sep 5, 1891
Citation: 109 N.C. 78
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.