Skip to main content
· 3/22/1898

Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Marshburn

Citations

  • 29 S.E. 411
  • 122 N.C. 411
  • 1898 N.C. LEXIS 276

Syllabus

<p>Practice — Appeal—Noting Exceptions — Jurisdiction— Justice of the Peace — Process of Justice of the Peace, Against Non-Resident Defendants — Judgment.</p> <p>1. No appeal lies from an order of the Superior Court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace. An exception should he noted to the refusal of the motion, which would he considered on an appeal from the final judgment.</p> <p>2. The question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time and in any Court where a case is pending; hence, a motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of a Justice of the Peace, based on a lack of proper service of process, maybe made at any time in the Superior Court since it raises a question of jurisdiction.</p> <p>8. Where a Justice of the Peace has not obtained jurisdiction of the party by reason of non-service of process in a matter of which he has exclusive original jurisdiction, the Superior Court cannot on appeal obtain jurisdiction by ordering a summons to issue to bring the party before it.</p> <p>4. As the officers of one county are not authorized to serve process in another county, the process provided for in Section 871 of The Code must be issued or addressed to the officers of the county where it is to be served.</p> <p>5. A summons improperly issued by a Justice of the Peace and improperly served does not bring a defendant into Court and a judgment rendered against such defendant is void,</p> <p>tí. A judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace against a non-resident defendant, on whom process was not served at least ten days before the return day, is void.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding dismissal for lack of due diligence in prosecuting case is not effective until court has adjudicated basic facts in hearing where plaintiff may explain delay in prosecuting suit
  • requiring notice for argument that, although a Rule 165a(1) dismissal was dismissals under the court's inherent power
  • “Whenever the hearing for such adjudication is had, the plaintiff has the right to be heard to explain, if he can, his delay in prosecuting his suit.”
  • requiring notice for dismissals under the court’s inherent power
  • requiring notice for dismissals under court’s inherent power

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ftjkohes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.