Philpott v. Johnson

3 Citing cases

  1. Winter v. Williams

    108 N.C. App. 739 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times
    In Winter, this Court held that the plaintiff exercised due diligence when, among other things, the plaintiff checked the public records, including records of the Division of Motor Vehicles, and could not obtain a current address of the defendant.

    The trial judge entered the order dismissing plaintiff's action without making any findings of fact. "[O]n a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process where the trial court enter[s] an order without making findings of fact, the Court of Appeals will determine as a matter of law if the manner of service of process was correct." Philpott v. Johnson, 38 N.C. App. 380, 381, 247 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1978) (citing Sherwood v. Sherwood, 29 N.C. App. 112, 223 S.E.2d 509 (1976)). Where there is no dispute as to the manner of service of process, we may examine the service to see if a correct service of the summons occurred.

  2. Love v. Insurance Co.

    263 S.E.2d 337 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 6 times

    We hold that it was not, and that Judge Hairston's conclusion on that aspect of this case was in error. In Philpott v. Johnson, 38 N.C. App. 380, 247 S.E.2d 781 (1978) we held that an affidavit by an agent of the publishing corporation met the requirements of G.S. 1-75.10(2). There is no showing in the case before us whether or not the publisher (Mecklenburg Times) is a corporation.

  3. Broughton v. DuMont

    43 N.C. App. 512 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 15 times
    In Broughton, this Court found that "plaintiff did not follow the provisions of Rule 4(j)(1)(c) in that the return receipt was not addressed to the party to be served, was not restricted to delivery to the addressee only, or receipted by the party to be served."

    On a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process where the trial court entered an order without making findings of fact, the Court of Appeals will determine as a matter of law if the manner of service of process was correct. Philpott v. Johnson, 38 N.C. App. 380, 247 S.E.2d 781 (1978); Sherwood v. Sherwood, 29 N.C. App. 112, 223 S.E.2d 509 (1976). It is clear from this record that defendant, at the time of the issuance of the summons in this case, was a natural person domiciled within the State, within the purview of G.S. 1-75.4 (1)b and that therefore jurisdiction over his person would obtain only pursuant to Rule 4 (j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.