Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Lilly & Bro. v. Purcell

Lilly & Bro. v. Purcell, 78 N.C. 82 (N.C. 1878)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1878-01-05
Topic
general

Faircloth, J. The plaintiff', a citizen of New Hanover County, brought this action before a Justice of the Peace in said County, against the defendant, a citizen of Robeson County, by sending process to the latter County, as provided by statute in certain cases. Did the Justice have jurisdiction ? In Wooten v. Maultsby, 69 N.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lilly & Bro. v. Purcell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
LILLYv. PURCELL,78 N.C. 82(1878)
LILLY BROTHER v. ARCHIBALD PURCELL.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(January Term, 1878.)
Justice of the Peace — Jurisdiction.

Laws 1876-77, ch., 287, ousting the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in civil actions where none of the defendants reside in the justice's county, does not apply to an action commenced before the passage of the act.
Appeal from a justice of the peace, and tried at June Term, 1877, of NEW HANOVER, beforeSeymour, J.

Upon the trial before the justice, the defendant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, because there was only one defendant, and he resided in a county other than that of the justice. This motion was overruled, and judgment given against the defendant for the amount of the note sued on, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court, and his Honor affirmed the ruling of the justice. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
Wright Steadman for plaintiff.McNeil McNeil for defendant.
FAIRCLOTH, J.
The plaintiff, a citizen of NEW HANOVER County, brought this action before a justice of peace in said county, against the defendant, a citizen of Robeson County, by sending process to the latter county, as provided by statute in certain cases. Did the justice have jurisdiction?Page 56

InWooden v. Maultsby,69 N.C. 462, it is said there was no such jurisdiction; but that was not the main question involved in that case, and it was probably not discussed. InSossamer v. Hinson, 72 (83) N.C. it was held that the justice had jurisdiction under a proper construction of Bat. Rev., ch. 63, sec. 50; and so the law continued until Laws 1876-77, ch. 287, ratified 12 March, 1877, after the present action was commenced, which act in explicit terms takes away jurisdiction in a case like the present. let judgment be entered here for the plaintiff according to the judgment below.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Approved: Fertilizer Co. v. Marshburn,122 N.C. 413;Rutherford v.Ray,147 N.C. 257;Austin v. Lewis,156 N.C. 463;Dixon v. Haar,158 N.C. 343.