{
  "id": 11274126,
  "name": "N. G. PENNIMAN v. J. H. DANIEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Penniman v. Daniel",
  "decision_date": "1886-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "343",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "95 N.C. 341"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683872
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C., 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0021-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 3659,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.34215094414948e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48077706460878605
    },
    "sha256": "a6d9716543069e13d8d27a70fb993373b619d5c3a30893cdf12ffb5cdb5562f1",
    "simhash": "1:1c86ba289ecc47db",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:31.449463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "N. G. PENNIMAN v. J. H. DANIEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ashe, J.\n(after stating the fa'cts.) The defendant demurs to the complaint upon the ground that both he and -the plaintiff are non-residents of the State, and there has been no personal service of the summons upon him, and no service at all, except an attempted service of the summons by publication, which he insists gives the Court no jurisdiction of his person.\nBut the defendant has filed this demurrer, and did so by his attorneys, who must have made an appearance for him to do so. The appearance, for aught that appears, is unqualified, and the reasonable construction is, that it was a general appearance, that is, for all purposes, otherwise the counsel would have asked leave of the Court to make a special appearance, which cures all antecedent irregularity in the process, and places the defendant upon the same ground as if he had been personally served with process. Wheeler v. Cobb, 75 N. C., 21; and the cases there cited.\nWe are of the opinion there was no error.\nLet this opinion be certified to the Superior Court of Catawba. County, that further proceedings may be had according to law.\nNo error. Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ashe, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. M. L. McGorkle, for the plaintiff.",
      "Mr. L. L. Witherspoon, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "N. G. PENNIMAN v. J. H. DANIEL.\nAppearance \u2014 Jurisdiction.\n1. A general appearance by counsel cures all antecedent irregularity in the service of process, and puts the defendant in Court, just as if he had been personally served with process.\n2. \u201cWhere it is desired to take advantage of any defect in the service of process, a special appearance should be entered for that purpose.\n8. So, where a defendant demurred because he had not been properly served, but a general appearance was entered by his counsel; It ivas held, that the appearance waived any irregularity in the service, and the demurrer was properly overruled.\n(Wheeler v. Cobh, 75 N. C., 21, cited and approved.)\nThis was a civil action, tried before Clark, Judge, at May-Term, 1886, of Catawba Superior Court.\nThe action was brought to recover the balance due on a prommissory note, made by the defendant to the plaintiff.\nThe plaintiff and defendant were both non-residents of this State.\nOn the 14th day of March, 1883, the plaintiff sued out a summons against the defendant, which was returned \u201c not to be found,\u201d and on the same day the plaintiff sued out a warrant of attachment against the defendant, which was levied upon certain real and personal property of the defendant.\nThe case was continued from Term to Term, until January Term, 1886, when an order of publication was made for the defendant to be and appear at the next Term of the Superior \u25a0Court, then and there to plead, answer or demur to the complaint.\nThe defendant demurred to the complaint, and for cause \u25a0of demurrer showed :\nI. That this is a civil action founded on a note for the payment of money, and the plaintiff and defendant were at the commencement of the action both non-residents of the State of North Carolina, and no personal service of the summons in this action has ever been made upon defendant, and no service at all, except an attempted service by publication, and therefore he says that this Court has no jurisdiction of his person, and ho asks judgment that the plaintiff take nothing by his summons, that the defendant go without day, and recover his cost of this action.\nThe case coming on to be heard upon the [complaint and demurrer thereto filed, and upon agreement of counsel, it was adjudged by the Court that the demurrer be overruled. It was further adjudged that the defendant have leave to file an answer to the plaintiff\u2019s complaint. From this judgment the defendant 'appealed.\nMr. M. L. McGorkle, for the plaintiff.\nMr. L. L. Witherspoon, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 367,
  "last_page_order": 369
}