{
  "id": 8660670,
  "name": "L. E. EVERITT v. AUSTIN BROTHERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Everitt v. Austin Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1915-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "622",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "169 N.C. 622"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "102 N. C., 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 U. S., 714",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3383405
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/95/0714-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1969,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1161348636673765e-07,
      "percentile": 0.763916738002872
    },
    "sha256": "e0b0d713c4eabd715a76e8eeb263505547df7f13f49381548716f30a55ce2c41",
    "simhash": "1:ab5b2573438e57d8",
    "word_count": 327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:09.233721+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. E. EVERITT v. AUSTIN BROTHERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "AlleN, J.\nWhen there is no personal service of process upon a nonresident defendant, \u25a0 the substituted service by publication is effectual only where property in the State is brought under the control of the court and subject to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; Winfree v. Bagley, 102 N. C., 517), and as it does not appear that any property of the defendants has been reached or levied upon by the attachment issued in the action, and as there is no allegation that the county of Edgecombe, upon whom the warrant of attachment was served, is indebted to the defendant, the judgment of his Honor must be affirmed. There are other irregularities which it is not necessary to consider.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "AlleN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel & Warren and Manning & Kitchin for plaintiff. \u25a0",
      "Henry A. Gilliam for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. E. EVERITT v. AUSTIN BROTHERS.\n(Filed 13 October, 1915.)\nProcess \u2014 Nonresidents \u2014 Summons \u2014 Publication \u2014 Property \u2014 Courts \u2014 Jurisdiction.\nA valid service of summons by publication cannot be made on a nonresident defendant unless he has property within the State which is brought under the control of the court; and where in attachment proceedings it appears that no property of the defendant has been reached or levied on, and the defendant has entered a special appearance for the purpose, his motion to dismiss will be allowed.\nAppeal by defendant from Carter, J., at the May Term, 1915, of Edgecombe.\nAction to recover dam\u00e1ges for personal injury.\nTbe defendants are nonresidents and no process bas been served on them. A warrant of attachment has been issued and a copy of the same was served on the board of commissioners of the county of Edgecombe, but there is no allegation that the county of Edgecombe is indebted to the defendant. The defendants entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss the action on several grounds assigned in a written motion. The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nDaniel & Warren and Manning & Kitchin for plaintiff. \u25a0\nHenry A. Gilliam for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 676,
  "last_page_order": 676
}