Aaron v. Pioneer Lumber Co

• Citation: 16 S.E. 1010,112 N.C. 189
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 07 March 1893
• Parties: AARON v. PIONEER LUMBER CO.

16 S.E. 1010

112 N.C. 189

AARON

v.PIONEER LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 7, 1893.

Service of Summons on Corporation — Validity.

Under Code, § 217, providing that service of a summons on a corporation shall be made by delivering a copy thereof, and section 840, (rule 15,)^hich applies such service of process issued from justice's court, a service is void where the original summons only is delivered to the officer of the corporation, who, after reading, returned it to the constable.

Appeal from superiorcourt, Wayne county; Bryan, Judge.

Action on a promissory note by D. J. Aaron against the Pioneer Lumber Company. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This was a civil action brought before F. A. Simmons, J. P., for the recovery of $200 due by note from the defendant to the plaintiff. The constable in the township in which the defendant company had its principal place of business, and where its officers all resided, served the summons by handing it to the president and secretary and treasurer of the defendant company, which was read by them, and returned to the constable. These were the only officers of the company. There was no copy of the summons left with any officer or other person representing the company. On the return day of the summons the defendant did not appear, and on the hearing the justice rendered judgment against the defendant, and in favor of the plaintiff, for the sum of $200 and costs. Two days after the rendition of the judgment, the defendant, upon affidavit and notice to the plaintiff, moved the justice who rendered the judgment to set aside said judgment on the ground that there had been no service of the summons. On the hearing of said motion tne justice refused to set aside the judgment, and the defendant appealed to the superior court. At the November term, 1892, of said superior court the judge presiding reversed the decision of the justice, and set aside said judgment, on the ground that there had been no service of the summons on the defendant, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs.

W. C. Munroe, for appellant.

W. R. Allen, for appellee.

Per Curiam. No copy of the summons having been delivered to the officer of the defendant corporation upon whom the constable attempted to make service of that process, no proper service was made;for Code, § 217, provides that service of a summons on a corporation must be by delivering n copy, aud by section 840(rulo 15) this applies to the...