{
  "id": 8547287,
  "name": "BEADIE FULTON STONE v. J. O. HICKS, d/b/a HICKS' PHARMACY, and HENRY JACKSON FOWLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stone v. Hicks",
  "decision_date": "1980-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7921SC478",
  "first_page": "66",
  "last_page": "69",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "45 N.C. App. 66"
    }
  ],
  "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": "159 S.E. 2d 556",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574935
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.C. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561055
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/295/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S.E. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1902,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ga. 959",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "case_ids": [
        412901
      ],
      "year": 1902,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ga/115/0959-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563046
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 S.E. 2d 573",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 791",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571524
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0791-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 770",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565444
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 N.C. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561424
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/293/0067-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 421,
    "char_count": 6583,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3754715819057529e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7962240269606452
    },
    "sha256": "6af82bace41e2158f2398773ef0cdc0a92f0e609c723595b2b43e5900d21e05e",
    "simhash": "1:4a6bc4e93c06e83e",
    "word_count": 1111
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BEADIE FULTON STONE v. J. O. HICKS, d/b/a HICKS\u2019 PHARMACY, and HENRY JACKSON FOWLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.\nWe hold the order of Judge Walker must be sustained. While it is true that the conduct of a lawsuit is not a game between counsel, process must be sufficient in order to give the court jurisdiction over the parties. Defendants made their motions for dismissal well within the time in which alias and pluries summons could be issued. No additional summons was issued.\nRule 4(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires that summons \u201cshall be directed to the defendant or defendants and shall notify each defendant to appear and answer within 30 days after its service upon him . . ..\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(b). Our Supreme Court has held compliance with statutory rules for service is necessary to obtain valid service. Guthrie v. Ray, 293 N.C. 67, 235 S.E. 2d 146 (1977). The summons issued are a part of the record on appeal. The copy of the summons delivered to defendant Fowler directed the defendant Hicks to appear and answer; the copy of the summons delivered to defendant Hicks directed the defendant Fowler to appear and answer. This was not service in accord with the statutory rules. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(l)(a). Although both defendants may have had actual notice of the lawsuit, such notice cannot supply constitutional validity to service unless the service is in the manner prescribed by statute. Distributors v. McAndrews, 270 N.C. 91, 153 S.E. 2d 770 (1967).\nDefendants have carried the burden by three affidavits to overcome the sheriffs returns. Kleinfeldt v. Shoney\u2019s, Inc., 257 N.C. 791, 127 S.E. 2d 573 (1962). Also, the summons with the returns of the officer are set out in the record on appeal and are patently defective. Philpott v. Kerns, 285 N.C. 225, 203 S.E. 2d 778 (1974).\nNeal-Millard Company v. Owens, 115 Ga. 959, 42 S.E. 266 (1902), is a case with very similar facts. There plaintiff filed petition against Hampton J. Herb and Mrs. Mary H. Owens. Process was served on Mrs. Mary H. Owens that directed Hampton J. Herb and Ed. L. Prince to appear and answer. Mrs. Owens filed a motion to vacate the service of process, which was allowed by the trial court. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, the court stating that service upon a defendant of process commanding someone else to appear in court is no process at all as to the defendant and he would have the right to utterly disregard it.\nWe are aware of Wiles v. Construction Co., 295 N.C. 81, 243 S.E. 2d 756 (1978). Wiles dealt with the narrow question of service of process upon a corporate defendant where a registered agent is involved. We hold Wiles does not apply to the facts in this case where jurisdiction is sought over individual natural persons.\nPlaintiff\u2019s counsel in his response to defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss states he is informed and believes that the sheriff served process on defendant Fowler\u2019s wife by delivering a copy of the summons to her at the hospital where defendant Fowler was a patient, rather than at defendant Fowler\u2019s dwelling house. We consider this a judicial admission. Such attempted service on defendant Fowler being made at the hospital rather than his dwelling house or usual place of abode fails to comply with N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j)(l)(a), and is invalid.\nWe hold the summons served on defendants are fatally defective and no jurisdiction over the defendants was obtained.\nPlaintiff contends the trial judge erred by failing to find facts. He was not required to so do and plaintiff failed to request that the court find facts in its order. N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(2). It is presumed that the trial court on competent evidence found facts sufficient to support the order. Williams v. Bray, 273 N.C. 198, 159 S.E. 2d 556 (1968).\nPlaintiff further argues that amendment of the summons should have been allowed and that defendants are estopped to question the validity of service upon them. The record does not support these arguments and we find no merit in them.\nThe order of the trial court dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action is\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and WEBB concur.\n. The record on appeal indicates the summons delivered to defendant Fowler was transmitted to the Greensboro claim office of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company on 7 June 1978 and both defendants promptly filed motions to dismiss by counsel.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Victor M. Lefkowitz for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod, by Kenneth R. Keller and Joseph E. Elrod III, for defendant appellee Hicks.",
      "Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, by J. Robert Elster and John F. Mitchell, for defendant appellee Fowler."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEADIE FULTON STONE v. J. O. HICKS, d/b/a HICKS\u2019 PHARMACY, and HENRY JACKSON FOWLER\nNo. 7921SC478\n(Filed 5 February 1980)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 4\u2014 summons directed to wrong person \u2014 no valid service\nSummons delivered to each of two defendants directing the other defendant rather than the defendant to whom delivered to appear and answer were fatally defective, and no jurisdiction over defendants was obtained, even if both defendants did have actual notice of the lawsuit.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Walker (Hal HJ, Judge. Judgment entered 8 January 1979 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 January 1980.\nPlaintiff instituted this action on 23 May 1978, two days before the action would have been barred by the statute of limitations. Summons was issued and the sheriff of Stokes County made returns indicating service upon each defendant. The return as to defendant Fowler stated service upon him was made by leaving a copy with his wife, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides in the defendant\u2019s dwelling house.\nDefendant Fowler filed motion to dismiss for insufficiency of service on 21 June 1978 and defendant Hicks filed a similar motion on 26 June 1978. Plaintiff filed a response to the motions on 10 July 1978. On 19 September 1978 defendant Fowler filed an affidavit by himself and one by his wife, stating that when defendant\u2019s wife was served he was in the hospital and that the summons was directed to \u201cJ. C. Hicks, Hicks\u2019 Pharmacy, North Main Street, Walnut Cove, N.C.\u201d Hicks filed an affidavit 6 October 1978 stating that the only summons delivered to him is directed to \u201cHenry Jackson Fowler, Post Office Box 38, Walnut Cove, North Carolina.\u201d All three affidavits stated no other summons, alias or pluries, had been served upon either defendant.\nUpon hearing the motions to dismiss, Judge Hal Hammer Walker allowed both motions and entered an order dismissing the action as to both defendants. Plaintiff appeals.\nVictor M. Lefkowitz for plaintiff appellant.\nTuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod, by Kenneth R. Keller and Joseph E. Elrod III, for defendant appellee Hicks.\nHudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson, by J. Robert Elster and John F. Mitchell, for defendant appellee Fowler."
  },
  "file_name": "0066-01",
  "first_page_order": 94,
  "last_page_order": 97
}