Court Opinion

ID: 9808565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:42:29.794503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.894664
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
dissenting.
It appears from the record evidence herein that 6th December, 1898, the plaintiff caused a summons to be issued against the defendant by a Justice of the Peace, and on the same day filed an affidavit on proper allegations, for an attachment of the property of the nonresident defendant, giving the bond required by statute. On the same day the Justice issued the warrant of attachment, which was returned in due form regularly levied upon the property of defendant, 1th December, 1898. Thereupon the plaintiff made publication for four weeks of the summons and warrant of attachment in the following form, as prescribed by The Code, section 909, Form 16:
"North Carolina — Cherokee County — Murphy Township— "J. A. Diimore v. N. A. Goins.
“Seventy-six dollars and twenty-five cents, due by note and due-bill. Warrant of attachment returnable before J. M.
*330Vaughan, a Justice of the Peace for Cherokee County, at his office in Murphy in said county, the 5th day of January, 1899, when and where the defendant is required to appear and answer the complaint. Dated this 7 th day of December, 1898.
J. II. Ditmoke, Plaintiff.”
Not only is (Iris publication of summons and warrant in the same publication a literal compliance with the form prescribed by the statute and therefore valid, but the joint publication is required by section 352, as follows: “When the warrant of attachment is taken out at the time of issuing the summons (which was the case here) and the summons is to be served by publication (here the affidavit alleged he was a non-resident), the order shall direct that notice be given in said publication to the’ defendant of the issuing of the attachment * * *, said publication shall state the names of the parties, the amount of the claims, and, in a brief way, the nature of the demand and time and place to which the warrant is returnable.” If this publication was defective, it did not invalidate the jurisdiction, which was based upon the seizure into the custody of the law of the property. When the defendant appeared in the action, as she afterwards did, it was ground for a motion to reopen the judgment but not for a dismissal of the attachment and of the proceedings ab initio.
In a very respectable authority, Cooper v. Reynolds, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.), 309, it is said, “the seizure of the property of the defendant under the proper process of the Court is therefore the foundation of the Court’s jurisdiction, and defective or irregular affidavits and publications of notice, though they might reverse a judgment in such case for error in departing from the directions of the statute, do not render such a judgment or the subsequent proceedings void.” When there can be service on the person, service of summons is *331indispensable and the foundation of tbe proceeding. But where it is a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem (as is an attachment of this kind), then the foundation is the seizure of the rem, and the publication of the summons if not properly made is an irregularity. If not regular, or for the proper time, the remedy is an order for republication, not a dismissal of the attachment.
There are two kinds of attachment: the one where the defendant is personally served with process and the attachment is an ancillary remedy given in cases prescribed by statute to secure the fruits of the judgment when it shall be obtained; the other is where the defendant can not be served with process ; there, a publication of summons alone would be a nullity. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; Bernhart v. Brown, 118 N. C., 700, 36 L. R. A., 402, in both of which cases the matter is fully discussed.
In Cooper v. Reynolds, supra, at page 319, that eminent authority, Mr. Justice Miller, says: “On what does the jurisdiction of the Court depend ? It seems to us that the seizure of the property or that which, in this case, is the same in effect, the levy of the writ of attachment on it, is the one essential requisite to jurisdiction. Without this the Court can proceed no further; with it the Court can proceed to subject the property to the demand of the plaintiff.” Then, after saying that proper affidavit is the preliminary to issuing an attachment, but if the attachment is levied, a defective affidavit would be ground of appeal, but would not invalidate the attachment,he adds: “So,also, of tihte publication of notice. It is the duty of the Court to order such publication and to see that it has been properly made, and undoubtedly if there has been no such publication a court of errors might reverse the judgment” — not hold it void, as stated in the opinion in this cause. In the present case the publication was made in the form required and prescribed by statute; but if it had *332been irregular’, the remedy is not to dismiss tbe action which is validly based on an attachment, but, retaining the canse, to set aside the judgment with a new trial, as in the case of any other error not going to the jurisdiction. Drake on Attachment, sections 224, 437, 437a.
In Bank v. Blossom, 92 N. C., 695, the publication of summons and warrant of attachment in the same notice (as here) was held valid; but if made for less than six weeks it was held an irregularity as to the summons, and the Court could “retain the cause and order a sufficient publication.” If that were still the law the judgment should, on defendant’s motion, be set aside and republication of summons ordered, but it would be error to dismiss the action. Since that decision, however, the incongruity of requiring publication of summons for a longer period than is required for publication of the warrant, both being in the same notice, has been cured by chapter 363, Laws 1893 (incorporated in section 352, Clark’s Code, 3d Ed.), which provides that when attachment proceedings are begun before a Justice of the Peace publication for four weeks shall be sufficient “both as to the summons and warrant of attachment.” ITence, there has been no irregularity or defect in this case. The defendant being a free trader, judgment could be rendered against her in a suit before a Justice of the Peace. Neville v. Pope, 95 N. C., 346. The defendant does not set up that it has a meritorious defence if the judgment is set aside (LeDuc v. Slocomb, 124 N. C., 347), and to set aside a judgment for irregularity in such case is erroneous. Gui bono go over the trial again without a meritorious defence.
I am of opinion that the judgment below reversing the Justice and setting aside his judgment should itself be reversed, and the Justice’s judgment should be reinstated.