Russell v. Bea Staple Mfg. Co., 689
Decision Date | 04 February 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 689,689 |
Citation | 266 N.C. 531,146 S.E.2d 459 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | Jim RUSSELL and Seymour Ett, t/a Russett Sales Company, v. BEA STAPLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Incorporated. |
Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn & Haworth, by John Haworth, and Don G. Miller, High Point, for defendant appellant.
Morgan, Byerly, Post & Keziah, by W. Dan Herring, High Point, for plaintiff appellee.
G.S. § 1-89 reads in relevant part: 'It [the summons] must be returnable before the clerk and must command the sheriff or other proper officer to summon the defendant, or defendants, to appear and answer the complaint of the plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after its service upon defendant, or defendants * * *.' (Emphasis ours.)
The original summons commanded the sheriff 'to summon Clayton Eddinger, Kearns Warehouse, 518 Hamilton Street, High Point, North Carolina, local agent for Bea Staple Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, defendant(s) above named,' and was so served. The copy of the summons delivered to Clayton Eddinger commanded the sheriff 'to summon Clayton Eddinger, Kearns Warehouse, 518 Hamilton Street, High Point, North Carolina, defendant(s) above named.'
Plemmons v. Southern Improvement Co., 108 N.C. 614, 13 S.E. 188, is directly in point. In that case the Court said:
The Court held that this did not make Southern Improvement Company a party to the case.
In Jones v. Vanstory, 220 N.C. 582, 157 S.E. 867, the plaintiff issued summonses to various counties for C. M. Vanstory, J. E. Vanhorn, Mrs. Emma B. Siler, W. C. Wicker, Lee A. Folger and others, who were designated in the summons 'trustees' of Masonic and Eastern Star Home. The Court held that the statutory provisions as to service of summons on private corporations must be observed, and where individuals, directors of Masonic and Eastern Star Home, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, are served with process as trustees, it will not be effectual as service on the corporation, but only on the individuals named, and cites as authority for its holding Plemmons v. Southern Improvement Co., supra.
To the same effect are Hogsed v. Pearlman, 213 N.C. 240, 195 S.E. 789; McLean v. Matheny, 240 N.C. 785, 84 S.E.2d 190; and statement in McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, 2d ed., § 864 at p. 448. See also Edwards v. Scott & Fetzer, Inc., 154 F.Supp. 41, 45 (U. S. District Court, M.D. North Carolina).
Plaintiffs in their brief state that Troy Lumber Co. v. State Sewing Machine Corp., 233 N.C. 407, 64 S.E.2d 415, 'is in point and should control this controversy.' With that statement we do not agree. We have examined the original case on appeal in that action, which contains a copy of the summons. The summons commands the sheriff of Forsyth County 'to summon State Sewing Machine Corporation'; this is not set forth in the Court's opinion in that case.
The original summons commanded the sheriff 'to summon Clayton Eddinger, Kearns Warehouse, 518 Hamilton Street,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yale v. National Indem. Co.
...jurisdiction over either of its insured judgment debtors. We note however that the North Carolina case, Russell v. Bea Staple Mfg. Co., 266 N.C. 531, 146 S.E.2d 459 (1966), relied upon by the district court in finding service of process ineffectual as to both state defendants, was subsequen......
-
Anderson v. Rick's Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge
...Corp., Inc. (1953), 175 Kan. 240, 262 P.2d 838; Sanders v. Metzger (E.D.Pa.1946) 66 F.Supp. 262; Russell v. Bea Staple Manufacturing Co. (1966), 266 N.C. 531, 146 S.E.2d 459. The summons in the instant case, directing the Sheriff to serve Neil Yaeger individually and not as agent of Rick's,......
-
State v. Pakulski
... ... McLean & Dixon, P.A. by Russell McLean, III, Waynesville, for defendant-appellant, Elliott ... ...
-
Wiles v. Welparnel Const. Co., Inc.
...constitutes service of process only on that person individually and not on the corporate defendant. Russell v. Bea Staple Manufacturing Company, Inc., 266 N.C. 531, 146 S.E.2d 459 (1966); Hassell & Co. v. Daniels' Roanoke River Line Steamboat Co., 168 N.C. 296, 84 S.E. 363 (1915); Plemmons ......