{
  "id": 8551237,
  "name": "NINA RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT; GRADY RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT and ROGER L. REVELS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ridge v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1978-03-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7722SC484",
  "first_page": "643",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 643"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556832
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/29/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 344,
    "char_count": 6912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.001866138506279e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8525773124224617
    },
    "sha256": "3808d8759aaac1749982b1754b4660c9071d3c28672ece856139181f61d0150d",
    "simhash": "1:efa19579d3a5b634",
    "word_count": 1111
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:32.681632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NINA RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT GRADY RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT and ROGER L. REVELS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nBy this appeal defendants again assign as error the failure of the trial court to grant their motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, to quash the return of summons. First, defendants contend that G.S. 1-105, which deals in part with service upon nonresident drivers of motor vehicles, required plaintiff, upon the return of \u201cunclaimed\u201d papers to defendant Wright, to send the letter to Wright by ordinary mail. G.S. 1-105(3) reads:\n\u201cThe defendant\u2019s return receipt, or the original envelope bearing a notation by the postal authorities that receipt was refused, and an affidavit by the plaintiff that notice of mailing the registered letter and refusal to accept was forthwith sent to the defendant by ordinary mail, together with the plaintiff\u2019s affidavit of compliance with the provisions of this section, must be appended to the summons or other process and filed with said summons, complaint and other papers in the cause.\u201d\nAccording to their interpretation of this section defendants equate a receipt that was refused with one that was unclaimed. This interpretation, however, flies in the face of the ordinary words of the statute and is rejected. A reading of G.S. 1-105(2) shows that the legislature addressed both a refusal to accept a registered letter and non-delivery of an unclaimed registered letter. We read the requirement in G.S. 1-105(3) that a refused registered letter be sent by ordinary mail to apply only to those letters which were in fact \u201crefused.\u201d\nDefendants\u2019 second argument is that a returned letter marked \u201cmoved, not forwardable\u201d should also be treated as a letter which has been refused. For the reasons already stated, we do not accept this interpretation of G.S. 1-105.\nThe final argument by defendants is that this Court in Ridge v. Wright, supra, did not comtemplate that, on remand, the trial court would consider plaintiffs\u2019 affidavits of compliance with G.S. 1-105. G.S. 1-105(3), of course, requires that plaintiffs append affidavits of compliance with G.S. 1-105 to the summons and file such affidavits with other papers in the cause. In reviewing this Court\u2019s action in Ridge v. Wright, supra, we conclude that the cause was remanded for the very purpose of allowing the trial court to review the motions in light of plaintiffs\u2019 affidavits. We, therefore, find no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendants\u2019 motions.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson, Biesecker, Tripp & Wall, by Roger S. Tripp, and Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by John E. Aldridge, Jr., for plaintiff appellees.",
      "Uzzell and Dumont, by Larry Leake, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NINA RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT GRADY RIDGE v. EDWARD D. WRIGHT and ROGER L. REVELS\nNo. 7722SC484\n(Filed 21 March 1978)\n1. Process \u00a7 16\u2014 refused registered letter \u2014 letters which must be sent by ordinary mail\nThe requirement of G.S. 1-105(3) that a refused registered letter be sent by ordinary mail applies only to those letters which are in fact refused, not to those which are unclaimed or those which are marked \u201cmoved, not forward-able.\u201d\n2. Process \u00a7 16\u2014 service of process on nonresident motorist \u2014 absence of affidavits \u2014 consideration of afffidavits on rehearing proper\nWhere the court, on an earlier appeal, held that, without affidavits of compliance and other documents required by G.S. 1-105(3), the service of process upon nonresident defendants was defective, and the court remanded the causes to superior court for another hearing on defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss for insufficiency of service of process, it was proper for the trial court, on remand, to consider plaintiffs\u2019 affidavits of compliance with G.S. 1-105 which had been filed pending the first appeal of the case but which were not considered by the court on appeal.\nAPPEAL by defendants from Long, Judge. Orders entered 7 April 1977, in Superior Court, DAVIDSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1978.\nPlaintiff Nina Ridge filed a complaint on 3 August 1973, in which she sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision which occurred in Buncombe County between an automobile in which she was a passenger and another automobile owned by defendant Revels and driven by defendant Wright. According to plaintiff\u2019s allegations, both defendants are residents of the State of Florida.\nPursuant to G.S. 1-105, summonses and complaints as to both defendants were served upon the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles on 6 August 1973, and on 7 August the Commissioner mailed copies by registered mail, return receipt requested, to each defendant at an address in Florida. Defendant Wright\u2019s letter was returned marked \u201cunclaimed.\u201d An alias and pluries summons was issued for defendant Wright on 26 October 1973, and was extended on 31 December 1973, and on 29 January 1974. This summons, however, was never served. On 31 July 1974, plaintiff Nina Ridge took a voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Revels.\nOn 30 July 1974, plaintiff Grady Ridge instituted an action against defendants Revels and Wright for damages for personal injuries and property damage received in the same automobile collision. Summonses were served upon the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles on 5 August 1974, and these summonses were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to defendants on the same day. The post office returned the letter addressed to defendant Revels with the notation \u201cMoved, Not Forwardable.\u201d The letter addressed to defendant Wright was delivered to him.\nDefendants filed similar motions in each case moving to dismiss under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b) for insufficiency of service of process. On 30 September 1975, Judge Crissman entered orders denying defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, and defendants appealed. They argued before this Court that their motion to dismiss for lack of service should be allowed since plaintiffs\u2019 attorney did not file affidavits of compliance as required by G.S. 1-105(3). These affidavits were filed pending the first appeal of this case but were ordered stricken from the record. In Ridge v. Wright, 29 N.C. App. 609, 225 S.E. 2d 131 (1976), this Court held that, without the affidavits of compliance and other documents required by G.S. 1-105(3), the service of process was defective. The court vacated the portions of the trial court\u2019s orders denying defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, to quash the service of process, and remanded the causes to superior court for another hearing on defendant\u2019s motions.\nAt the 14 February 1977 session of Superior Court of Davidson County, Judge James M. Long heard the motions of defendants. At this hearing plaintiffs introduced two documents, purported affidavits of compliance as required by G.S. 1-105(3). These documents had not been before Judge Crissman at the earlier hearing on defendants\u2019 motions. Judge Long entered orders again denying defendants\u2019 motions, and defendants appealed.\nWilson, Biesecker, Tripp & Wall, by Roger S. Tripp, and Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by John E. Aldridge, Jr., for plaintiff appellees.\nUzzell and Dumont, by Larry Leake, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0643-01",
  "first_page_order": 671,
  "last_page_order": 674
}
