{
  "id": 11277429,
  "name": "RICHARD P. SPIERS v. HALSTEAD, HAINES & CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spiers v. Halstead, Haines & Co.",
  "decision_date": "1874-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "210",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "71 N.C. 209"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2443,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.439,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.117630980688762e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9386641846686814
    },
    "sha256": "f3342ebdcf993dda579f73f6a2f2598437a2c63b5658a8e77327af3a58b28ee6",
    "simhash": "1:e26e8e17cb01e4d6",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:20.176490+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "RICHARD P. SPIERS v. HALSTEAD, HAINES & CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade,, J..\nService of process upon the defendant so as to-make him a party and enable him to defend, is necessary te-the validity of every subsequent step in the action. Such service may be by taking the body, or by personal summons, or by publication, as may be prescribed by law in any given case. In this ease the service was by publication. And the only question is, whether the service is sufficient ?\nPersonal service being the ordinary mode of making the defendant a party, it seems to be contemplated by our statute that that shall be the only mode, unless a foundation is laid for some other by affidavit. And so service by publication is (prescribed where it \u201c appears by affidavit,\u201d that the defendant \u2022\u201c is not a resident of this State, but has property therein, and libe *Oourt has jurisdiction of the subject of the action.\u201d C. C. P., sec. \"83. In this case the affidavit states that the defendant is \u201c not a resident of this State,\u201d but it does not state that he \u201c has property within the same.\u201d It does appear subsequently by the return of the sheriff that the defendant did have property in this State; and the plaintiff insists that this is sufficient. If so, it would be sufficient if-it should appear by the return of the sheriff, or in some other way, that the defendant is not a resident of this State. And so an affidavit might be dispensed with altogether. But the statute prescribes that whatever is necessary to dispense with personal service of the summons shall appear by affidavit and not otherwise.\nWe are of the opinion that the affidavit is insufficient, and \u25a0that there is no error in the order appealed from.\n.Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade,, J.."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Ciarle, for appellant.",
      "Moore &\u25a0 Catling, Batchelor <& Son, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RICHARD P. SPIERS v. HALSTEAD, HAINES & CO.\nAn affidavit, in which, it is stated that the defendant is \u201cnon-resident-of this State,\u201d hut it does not state that he \u201chas property within the same,\u201d is not sufficient to justify a service by publication.\nCivil aotioN for the recovery of a certain debt by attachment, tried at the Spring Term, 1874, of Halifax Superior Court, before his Honor Judge Watts.\nThe only question raised in the case was as-to the sufficiency of the affidavit, and the facts relating to which are set out fully in the opinion of,the Court.\nHis Honor, on the trial below, held the affidavit insufficient, and gave judgment accordingly. From this judgment plain-tiff appealed.\nW. Ciarle, for appellant.\nMoore &\u25a0 Catling, Batchelor <& Son, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 218
}