{
  "id": 8630956,
  "name": "E. C. GROCE v. WALTER GROCE et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Groce v. Groce",
  "decision_date": "1938-11-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "398",
  "last_page": "399",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 398"
    }
  ],
  "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": "175 S. E., 283",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8633048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0817-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623247
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S. E., 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609046
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 406",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628591
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0694-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S. E., 270",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 N. C., 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655413
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/179/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S. E., 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651822
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0174-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S. E., 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N. C., 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626057
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0755-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613481
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 3999,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2831674921002638e-07,
      "percentile": 0.785392507439623
    },
    "sha256": "67f21cbfcfa65cca5c720b2224deb42389be8cc83853ecc59526cfad9c4e32fa",
    "simhash": "1:000d8a2efa9ca399",
    "word_count": 698
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. C. GROCE v. WALTER GROCE et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nTbe record contains no averment, by affidavit or otherwise, that tbe defendants \u201ccannot, after due diligence, be found in tbe State.\u201d Denton v. Vassiliades, 212 N. C., 513, 193 S. E., 737. Tbis is an essential requirement to obtain service of summons by publication, C. S., 484, and it must be made to appear \u201cto tbe satisfaction of tbe court.\u201d Bethell v. Lee, 200 N. C., 755, 158 S. E., 493; Grocery Co. v. Bag Co., 142 N. C., 174, 55 S. E., 90; Wheeler v. Cobb, 75 N. C., 21. It will not suffice simply to say tbe defendants are nonresidents of tbe State. Davis v. Davis, 179 N. C., 185, 102 S. E., 270. Non constat that they may not be frequent visitors to tbe State and amenable to process while here. Hill v. Lindsay, 210 N. C., 694, 188 S. E., 406.\nIn Fowler v. Fowler, 190 N. C., 536, 130 S. E., 315, it was held that service of summons by publication, on a defective affidavit, was ineffectual to bring tbe defendants into court. To like effect is tbe decision in Denton v. Vassiliades, supra.\nIt is tbe universal bolding that unless one named as a defendant has been brought into court in some way sanctioned by law, or makes a voluntary appearance in person or by attorney, a judgment rendered against him is void for want of jurisdiction. Stevens v. Cecil, ante, 217; Downing v. White, 211 N. C., 40, 188 S. E., 815; Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N. C., 817, 175 S. E., 283.\nThere was error in denying tbe motion of appellants. Denton v. Vassiliades, supra.\nError.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Parles G. Hampton and Don A. Walser for movants, appellants.",
      "F. D. B. Harding and William M. Allen for respondents, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. C. GROCE v. WALTER GROCE et al.\n(Filed 9 November, 1938.)\n1. Process \u00a7 5 \u2014 Averment that defendants are nonresidents is insufficient to support service of summons by publication.\nA sheriff\u2019s return that after due inquiry defendants \u201care said to be residents and citizens\u201d of another State, and an averment in the complaint, used as an affidavit, that defendants were residents of such other State, is insufficient to support service of summons by publication, since notwithstanding such nonresidence defendants might be visitors in the State and amenable to process here, and it being required that it appear by proper averment that defendants \u201ccannot, after due diligence, be found in the State,\u201d C. S., 484.\n2. Judgments \u00a7\u00a7 22b, 26\u2014\nA judgment entered upon a fatally defective service of summons by publication is void for want of jurisdiction, and defendants\u2019motion in the cause to set same aside should be allowed.\nAppeal by movants, W. I. Groce and Amanda Jane Groce, from Pless, J., at February Term, 1938, of YabeiN.\nOn 6 April, 1937, E. C. Groce instituted an action against the movants herein in the Superior Court of Yadkin County by (1) issuing summons, (2) filing \u201ccomplaint .and affidavit,\u201d (3) obtaining warrant of attachment, and (4) notice of service by publication. On the same day, the sheriff made return on the summons as follows: \u201cReturned not served. After due search and inquiry the defendants Walter Groce and Amanda Jane Groce are said to be residents and citizens of the State of Ind.\u201d\nThe complaint, used as an affidavit, contains the averment that \u201cthe defendants and each of them are residents of the County of Henry and State of Indiana.\u201d\nTbe defendants filed no' answer and made no appearance.\nAt tbe December Term, 1937, Yadkin Superior Court, issues were submitted to a jury and answered in favor of tbe plaintiff, and judgment was entered tbereon directing sale of land, etc.\nThereafter, in February, 1938, tbis action was begun to restrain tbe sale of tbe land and to bave tbe judgment vacated. By consent, tbe matter came on for bearing before Pless, J., upon tbe return date of the restraining order, at wbicb time tbe plaintiffs were allowed to treat their complaint as an affidavit and motion in the original cause.\nTbe motion to vacate tbe judgment in tbe original action was denied, and from tbis ruling tbe movants appealed, assigning errors.\nParles G. Hampton and Don A. Walser for movants, appellants.\nF. D. B. Harding and William M. Allen for respondents, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0398-01",
  "first_page_order": 466,
  "last_page_order": 467
}