Whitehurst v. Anderson, 228 N.C. 787 (1947)

Oct. 8, 1947 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
228 N.C. 787
ROBBIE S. WHITEHURST and H. P. WHITEHURST; BESSIE L. ENGLISH and J. L. ENGLISH; E. E. SAMS and BONITA S. OSBORNE v. JOHN W. ANDERSON, JOHN ROBERT ANDERSON; NETTIE R. ANDERSON, MAY SAMS GOODNER, MAE SAMS MERRITT, CATHERINE SAMS EDWARDS and ROY EDWARDS; BESSIE SAMS CASAS and O. R. CASAS; H. J. ANDERSON and Wife, LAVINIA ANDERSON

ROBBIE S. WHITEHURST and H. P. WHITEHURST; BESSIE L. ENGLISH and J. L. ENGLISH; E. E. SAMS and BONITA S. OSBORNE v. JOHN W. ANDERSON, JOHN ROBERT ANDERSON; NETTIE R. ANDERSON, MAY SAMS GOODNER, MAE SAMS MERRITT, CATHERINE SAMS EDWARDS and ROY EDWARDS; BESSIE SAMS CASAS and O. R. CASAS; H. J. ANDERSON and Wife, LAVINIA ANDERSON.

(Filed 8 October, 1947.)

Appeal and Error § 38—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by defendants John W. Anderson and John Robert Anderson et ux. from Nettles, J., April Term, 1947, of MadisoN.

*788Civil action beard on motion, made on special appearance, to dismiss for want of proper service of process.

Tbe court below permitted plaintiffs to amend tbe order extending tbe time to file tbe complaint, served together witb tbe summons, to sbow tbe nature and purpose of tbe suit as required by GL S. 1-121, and denied tbe motion. Tbe movents appealed.

Geo. M. Pritchard and Geo. Greene for plaintiff appellees.

Galvin R. Edney, J. M. Baley, Jr., and J. H. McElroy for defendant appellants.

Per Curiam.

Tbe question posed for decision is tbis: Where a summons in proper form, together witb an order extending tbe time for filing complaint, is served on tbe defendants, but such order does not state tbe nature and purpose of tbe suit as provided by Gr. S. 1-121, is tbe service fatally defective and therefore insufficient to bring tbe defendants into court, or is such defect a mere irregularity subject to correction by amendment?

Tbe Court, one member not sitting, being evenly divided in opinion as to tbe correct answer, tbe judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, accordant witb tbe usual practice in such cases, and stands as tbe decision in tbis case, without becoming a precedent. Toxey v. Meggs, 216 N. C., 798, 4 S. E. (2d), 513; Howard v. Coach Co., 216 N. C., 799, 4 S. E. (2d), 616.

Affirmed.