{
  "id": 8628327,
  "name": "LEON SUSKIN v. MARYLAND TRUST COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Suskin v. Maryland Trust Co.",
  "decision_date": "1938-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 388"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 S. E., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S. E., 17",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662187
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S. E., 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 30",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655105
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0030-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S. E., 332",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628349
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 S. E., 264",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 155",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270062
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0155-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 S. E., 198",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N. C., 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650063
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/102/0515-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6899566345373803
    },
    "sha256": "ea569095876052acbe3c8c67936e7a6fa92f15dbb0e1eaab9164f6a6518ea690",
    "simhash": "1:440cc95f1cd28251",
    "word_count": 635
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEON SUSKIN v. MARYLAND TRUST COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt may be conceded tbat wben the defendants first appeared specially and moved to dismiss for want of any valid service of process, their position was perhaps well taken, no attachment having issued, Winfree v. Bagley, 102 N. C., 515, 9 S. E., 198, and had the matter rested there, a dismissal would have been in order. Finch v. Slater, 152 N. C., 155, 67 S. E., 264. However, without presently passing upon the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, a new order for publication of summons and warrant of attachment was issued upon the affidavit already filed. This was permissible under the decisions, Rushing v. Ashcraft, 211 N. C., 627, 191 S. E., 332, and it appears to have cured the original defects. Jenette v. Hovey, 182 N. C., 30, 108 S. E., 301; Mills v. Hansel, 168 N. C., 651, 85 S. E., 17.\nThe validity of the service of process is the only question presented by the appeal. Denton v. Vassiliades, 212 N. C., 513; Motor Co. v. Reaves, 184 N. C., 260, 114 S. E., 175. Whether there was error in any other respect is not before us.\nThe record is not such as to require a disturbance of the judgment.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. E. Whitehurst and L. I. Moore for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "W. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for Trust Go. and Sydney B. Tra-ub, trustees, estate of Louis B. Sushin, defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LEON SUSKIN v. MARYLAND TRUST COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 13 April, 1938.)\nProcess \u00a7 6 \u2014 Order for publication without issuance of attachment held cured by later order for publication and warrant of attachment.\nService of process by publication was ordered without issuance of warrant of attachment, the notice of attachment being served on the garnishee two days later. Upon special appearance and motion to dismiss, a new order for publication of summons and warrant of attachment was issued upon the affidavit already filed. Held: The new order was permissible and cured the defects in the original order.\nAppeal by defendants from Grady, Jat February Term, 1938, of CRAVEN.\nCivil action for alleged wrongful conversion.\nTbe plaintiff is a resident of Craven County. Tbe defendants are executors and trustees of tbe estate of Louis B. Suskin, late of tbe city of Baltimore and State of Maryland. Tbe action is for wrongful conversion of property by tbe said Louis B. Suskin during bis lifetime.\nService of process is sought to be bad by attachment of funds and property belonging to tbe defendants and situate in this State.\nOn 29 December, 1936, tbe plaintiff filed affidavit for publication of service which was ordered by the clerk, returnable 15 March, 1937. No warrant of attachment was then issued, but two days 'later notice of attachment was served on garnishee. The garnishee answered 18 January, 1937, saying that it owed tbe defendants $150.00 and they were tbe owners of 197 shares of its capital stock.\nOn 1 March, 1937, tbe defendants, through counsel, entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, alleging that the defendants had not been brought into court by any valid service of process.\nWithout presently passing upon the defendants\u2019 motion made upon special appearance, a new order for publication of summons and warrant of attachment was issued 9 March, 1937, returnable 26 April. Thereafter, on 17 April, 1937, the clerk denied the motion to dismiss. The defendants noted an exception and appealed to the judge.\nA second motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants, still on special appearance, for that no valid service of process was obtained by the second order for publication of summons and warrant of attachment.\nThe motion was granted in favor of the defendants as executors and denied in their capacity as trustees. From this ruling the defendants appeal, assigning error.\nR. E. Whitehurst and L. I. Moore for plaintiff, appellee.\nW. B. R. Gui\u00f3n for Trust Go. and Sydney B. Tra-ub, trustees, estate of Louis B. Sushin, defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 452,
  "last_page_order": 453
}