Case Name: GEORGE L. GLASS and Wife, PRINCESS GLASS, v. D. E. MOORE, C. O. MOORE, R. A. MOORE, T. M. MOORE, and W. P. MOORE, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of D. E. MOORE & SONS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1928-04-11
Citations: 195 N.C. 871
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE L. GLASS and Wife, PRINCESS GLASS, v. D. E. MOORE, C. O. MOORE, R. A. MOORE, T. M. MOORE, and W. P. MOORE, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of D. E. MOORE & SONS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 195
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
GEORGE L. GLASS and Wife, PRINCESS GLASS, v. D. E. MOORE, C. O. MOORE, R. A. MOORE, T. M. MOORE, and W. P. MOORE, Trading and Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of D. E. MOORE & SONS.
(Filed 11 April, 1928.)
Process — Service—Return and Proof of Service.
The return of process regularly showing service by the court’s appropriate officer cannot he overthrown by the testimony of a single witness.
Appeal by defendants from Stack, J., at November Term, 1927, of RocKINGham.
New trial.
No counsel for plaintiffs.
Glidewell, Dunn & Gwyn for defendants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only question presented by this appeal: Is the testimony of a single witness sufficient to attack an officer's return of process purporting regular service? We cannot so bold. All the authorities are to the contrary in this jurisdiction. See Trust Co. v. Nowell, ante, 449.
For the reasons given there must be a
New trial.