Case Name: BURWELL & PARHAM v. EDWARD LAFFERTY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1877-01
Citations: 76 N.C. 383
Docket Number: 
Parties: BURWELL & PARHAM v. EDWARD LAFFERTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 383–384

Head Matter:
BURWELL & PARHAM v. EDWARD LAFFERTY.
Attachment — Order of Publication — Serviee of Summons,
In a proceeding by attachment, where the order for publication was for-four weeks instead of six, and no order was made to deposit a copy of~ the summons and complaint in the post-office directed to the defendant-, nor was such deposit made, the attachment should be vacated.
(Spiers v. Huisteá,.7t N. C. 209¡ cited and approved.)
ATTACHMENT, granted December 27, 1875, at Chambers im Eranklinton, by Watts, J.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was indebted to-them in the sum of $381.43 and had removed from this State; to Canada to avoid the serviee of legal process. For irregularities in the proceedings in the Court below the substance; of which is stated in the opinion, the case was not decided upon its merits. No further statement of the facts is deemed necessary.
Judgment for plaintiffs. Appeal by defendant.
Mr. W. H. Young, for plaintiffs,
Messrs. Moore Gatling and G. A. Cook, for defendant.

Opinion:
Eairoloth, J.
It would be tedious to mention all the defects and irregularities of the proceedings on which the judgment was rendered in this case. There was no personal serviee of the summons nor any by publication as required by C. C. P. ch. 17, § 84. The order for publication was foi-four weeks whereas the statute requires six weeks and although it appears from the affidavit that the residence of the defendant was known, no order was made to deposit a copy of the summons and complaint in the post office directed to the defendant as required by said section nor was such deposit in fact made. The case of Spiers v. Halsted, 71 N. C. 209, is decisive of this case. This Court bas so repeatedly defined the modes of proceeding in attachments that it is not necessary to 'repeat them here.
The defendant's motion is to vacate said judgment-which His Honor refused. We think it should have been allowed.
There is error.
Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.