Case ID: nc_77/html/0035-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rodman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS W. SPARROW v. THE TRUSTEES OF DAVIDSON COLLEGE.
    
      Serviee of Summons — Notice—Appeal,
    1. Service of a summons is notice of an action and the defendant is bound! to take notice of the judgment therein if one be taken against him.
    3. Where a defendant appealed from the judgment of a Justice of the Peace upon the ground that the only notice he had of the action was the service of the summons ; Held, That the appeal was properly dismissed.
    3. The word “or” in Bat. Rev. oh. 63, § 54, should be read “and.” '
    
      {McDaniel v. Watkins, 76 N. C., 399, cited and approved.)
    Motion to dismiss an Appeal from a Justice’s Court, heard. at Spring Term, 1877, of Mecklenburg Superior Court, before Cloud, J.
    
    In 1876, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant before a Justice of the Peace. The summons was returned “executed,” and judgment rendered .in favor of plaintiff. No execution was issued upon the judgment. The defendant failed to appeal foi a considerable time after the ten days which elapsed after the rendition of judgment. The defendant did not appear at the trial, and had no notice of the judgment except in so far as the service of the summons may be treated as notice. The defendant craved an appeal within fifteen days after receiving notice, and in less than ten days thereafter, gave the proper notice of appeal, and an undertaking. The motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal was allowed by His Honor and the defendant appealed
    
      Messrs. Shipp cf Bailey, for plaintiff.
    
      Mr. A. Bunoell, for defendant.
   Rodman, J.

The word “or” in ch. 63-, § 54, of Bat. Rev, evidently should be read “and.” It is probably a mere misprint. If a defendant be personally served with a Justice’s warrant he has notice of the action and is bound to take notice of the judgment if one be taken against him. McDaniel v. Watkins, 76 N. C. 399, is therefore in point.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.