Bethell v. Lee
Decision Date | 13 May 1931 |
Docket Number | 373. |
Citation | 158 S.E. 493,200 N.C. 755 |
Parties | BETHELL v. LEE. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Finley, Judge.
Suit by W. D. Bethell against B. F. Lee. From the judgment, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
The evidence tended to show that on June 4, 1921, B. F. Lee instituted a civil action against George W. Bethell. On June 6, 1921, the sheriff returned the summons with the following entry: "Not to be found in Rockingham County." On the same day the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging "that the defendant is a resident of the State of Virginia, residing in the city of Norfolk," and further "that the defendant, George W. Bethell, is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $4,218.50 and interest thereon from July 1, 1920; that no part of said debt has been paid to satisfy the entire amount, but the entire amount is still due and owing to the plaintiff by the defendant; that there are no offsets or counterclaims in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff on account of said debt." On the same day the plaintiff, Lee, made an affidavit as follows: "That he is about to commence an action against the above named defendant for the purpose of recovering $4,218.50 with interest from July 1, 1920; that the said defendant is a nonresident of the State of North Carolina and is beyond the reach of process issuing from the courts of said State." On the same day the plaintiff, Lee, filed another affidavit as follows:
Thereupon on June 6, 1921, the clerk of the superior court made the following order:
It appears that a proper notice of summons and warrant of attachment was duly published as required by law.
Thereafter on January 7, 1924, the clerk of the superior court entered the following judgment: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Denton v. Vassiliades
...found in the state." This is an essential requirement, and it must be made to appear "to the satisfaction of the court." Bethell v. Lee, 200 N.C. 755, 158 S.E. 493; Sawyer v. Drainage District, 179 N.C. 182, 102 S.E. 273; Luttrell v. Martin, 112 N.C. 593, 17 S.E. 573; Bacon v. Johnson, 110 ......
-
Voehringer v. Pollock
... ... the decisions of this Court, where service is by attachment ... of property and publication, no summons is required. In such ... cases it is considered a useless formality to issue a summons ... and have the sheriff make the return that the defendant is ... not to be found. Bethell v. Lee, 200 N.C. 755, 158 ... S.E. 493; Mohn v. Cressey, 193 N.C. 568, 137 S.E ... 718; Jenette v. Hovey & Co., 182 N.C. 30, 108 S.E. 301; ... Mills v. Hansel, 168 N.C. 651, 85 S.E. 17; ... Grocery Co. v. Collins Bag Co., 142 N.E. 174, 55 ... S.E. 90; Best v. British & American Mortgage Co., ... ...
-
Groce v. Groce
...to obtain service of summons by publication, C.S. § 484, and it must be made to appear "to the satisfaction of the court." Bethell v. Lee, 200 N.C. 755, 158 S.E. 493, 494; Peters Grocery Co. v. Collins Bag Co., 142 N.C. 174, 55 S.E. 90; Wheeler v. Cobb, 75 N.C. 21. It will not suffice simpl......
-
Connolly v. Sharpe, 8022SC196
...remedy which must be strictly construed; however, substantial compliance with the statutory requirements will suffice. Bethell v. Lee, 200 N.C. 755, 158 S.E. 493 (1931). Attachment against resident defendants must be based on an affidavit setting forth the facts and circumstances supporting......