Smith v. Gordon
Decision Date | 14 June 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 20.,20. |
Citation | 169 S.E. 634,204 N. C. 695 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | SMITH. v. GORDON. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County; Cowper, Special Judge.
Action by C. L Smith, agent for S. A. Moore, against P. L. Gordon. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
On September 25, 1926, C. L. Smith, agent. for S. A. Moore, in an action in the circuit court for Kanawha county, state of West. Virginia, secured a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $710, with interest thereon. This judgment recites that on September 2, 1926, an affidavit was filed as provided by statute and a distress warrant issued against the defendant, commanding the proper officer of the state of West Virginia "to distrain so much of goods and chattels of defendant as were found upon messuage and tenement described in the affidavit as shall be sufficient to satisfy the rent in arrears and the cost of the distress as claimed in the said affidavit, " etc. Pursuant to such warrant certain personal property of defendant was seized and sold. The sale was made on October 6, 1926, and the property, according to the return of the constable, brought $50.
On May 23, 1930, the plaintiff Smith, as agent for said Moore, instituted an action against the defendant in Pasquotank county. The complaint recited the West Virginia judgment, and said judgment was duly authenticated as provided by law. The defendant did not answer, and a judgment by default was taken. However, this judgment was afterwards vacated on the ground of excusable neglect, and the plaintiff did not appeal. Hence this phase of the case is not. relevant. The defendant filed an answer alleging that the plaintiff had secured a judgment against him in West Virginia without personal service and had seized and sold all of his office furniture and fixtures. The evidence tended to show that S. A. Moore owned an office building in Charleston, W. Va., and that the defendant rented certain offices and vacated the premises and left the state. On July 24, 1926, the defendant wrote the following letter:
On December 19, 1929, the defendant also wrote the following letter: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merchants & Planters Nat. Bank of Sherman v. Appleyard
...225 N.C. 642, 35 S.E.2d 875; Webb v. Webb, 222 N.C. 551, 23 S.E.2d 897; Clodfelter v. Wells, 212 N.C. 823, 195 S.E. 11; Smith v. Gordon, 204 N.C. 695, 169 S.E. 634; Tieffenbrun v. Flannery, 198 N.C. 397, 151 S.E. 857, 68 A.L. R. 210; Vanderbilt v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 188 N.C. 568......
-
McGowan v. Beach
...v. Hill, 118 N.C. 900, 24 S.E. 771; Cooper v. Jones, 128 N.C. 40, 38 S.E. 28; Hunt v. Eure, 188 N.C. 716, 125 S.E. 484; Smith v. Gordon, 204 N.C. 695, 169 S.E. 634; Bryant v. Kellum, 209 N.C. 112, 182 S.E. 708. These decisions are not controlling on the facts involved in this In the trial b......
-
Cannon v. Cannon
... ... service, could have any in personam effect on the the parties ... against whom the estoppel is pleaded. Smith v ... Gordon, 204 N.C. 695, 169 S.E. 634; Stevens v ... Cecil, 214 N.C. 217, 199 S.E. 161; Pennoyer v ... Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; ... ...
-
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Tar River Lumber Co.
...6 Am.Rep. 752; Faison v. Bowden, Ex'r, 72 N.C. 405; Taylor v. Miller, supra; King Bros. Shoe Store Co. v. Wiseman, supra; Smith v. Gordon, 204 N.C. 695, 169 S.E. 634, numerous other cases. Moreover, it is further declared in Phillips v. Giles, supra [175 N.C. 409, 95 S.E. 774], that the pri......