{
  "id": 8601261,
  "name": "S. A. STEVENS v. CORNELIA VANDERBILT CECIL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. Cecil",
  "decision_date": "1939-10-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "350",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 350"
    }
  ],
  "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": "129 N. C., 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659602
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/129/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3389,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20712906428135386
    },
    "sha256": "1b6259504769a5667dd95479e85fa5447d5b9f5977c11a7d73b7cbfad7e675c5",
    "simhash": "1:5e78738aa2ff8f4a",
    "word_count": 574
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. A. STEVENS v. CORNELIA VANDERBILT CECIL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Schenck, J.\nThis is an appeal from an order vacating an attachment made upon motion of tbe defendant lodged under a special appearance.\nTbe plaintiff bad summons to issue against tbe defendant wbieb was returned \u201cDue search made, defendant not to be found in Buncombe County.\u201d Upon tbe plaintiff\u2019s filing proper undertaking, tbe clerk issued a warrant of attachment, and ordered that service of summons and of tbe attachment be made by publication. Tbe sheriff served tbe summons and attachment upon C. D. Beadle, Secretary-Treasurer and North Carolina process officer of tbe Biltmore Company, and an order to said C. D. Beadle requiring him to appear before tbe clerk and answer upon oath as to tbe ownership of capital stock in tbe Biltmore Company by tbe defendant.\nTbe defendant entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss tbe attachment and order of garnishment for that it appeared from tbe complaint filed that an attachment did not lie.\nTbe complaint, which was used as an affidavit to procure tbe attachment, alleges two causes of action. Tbe first cause of action alleged being that tbe plaintiff, while an employee of tbe defendant, was permanently injured by tbe negligence of tbe agents of tbe defendant and bad instituted action for damages caused by said injury, and that shortly after issue was joined in said action tbe defendant\u2019s agent and manager falsely and fraudulently represented to tbe plaintiff that be bad power to settle and compromise said action, and thereby induced tbe plaintiff to compromise said action for tbe nominal sum of $75.00 and a contract for permanent employment, which contract tbe defendant breached. Tbe cause of action thus alleged has been determined adversely to tbe plaintiff. Stevens v. Cecil, 209 N. C., 738. Hence it plainly appears from tbe pleadings that tbe so-called \u201cfirst cause of action\u201d must fail and that it was proper so far as said \u201cfirst cause of action\u201d was concerned to vacate tbe attachment. Knight v. Hatfield, 129 N. C., 191.\nTbe prayer for relief in tbe second cause of action alleged in tbe complaint is that tbe \"retraxit be canceled and tbe aforementioned judgment of nonsuit be stricken out and that said former action be reinstated on tbe Civil Issue Docket of this court for trial according to tbe course and practice of tbe courts.\u201d It is apparent that this action is neither \u201cto recover a sum of money only,\u201d nor \u201cdamages for one or more\u201d of tbe causes enumerated in tbe statute, C. S., 798. Hence tbe attachment was properly vacated in so far as tbe second cause of action alleged in tbe complaint is concerned.\nTbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Schenck, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Don C. Young and Frank Carter for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Adams & Adams for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. A. STEVENS v. CORNELIA VANDERBILT CECIL.\n(Filed 18 October, 1939.)\n1. Process \u00a7 5\u2014\nWhere it appears that the cause of action alleged had theretofore been finally determined against plaintiff in a prior suit, such cause of action will not support service of process by publication and attachment.\n3. Same\u2014\nAn action to cancel a judgment of reirawit will not support the service of process by publication and attachment, since it is not one to recover a sum of money only nor damages for one or more of the causes of action enumerated in the statute, C. S., 798.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Pless, J., at February Term, 1939, of Buncombe.\nAffirmed.\nDon C. Young and Frank Carter for plaintiff, appellant.\nAdams & Adams for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0350-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 417
}