Narrative Opinion Summary
The Court determines that the appearance made by defendant Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. was not a special appearance as claimed, but rather a general appearance. This classification means that any defects related to the court's jurisdiction due to lack of service of summons have been waived. The decision references the case of In re Blalock, which is deemed controlling and relevant to the distinction between special and general appearances. The decisions cited by the appellee were reviewed and found to be inapplicable. Consequently, the judgment being appealed is declared erroneous and is set aside. The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. thirty days to demur or answer as per G.S. 1-125.
Legal Issues Addressed
Erroneous Judgment and Remand for Further Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court declared the judgment being appealed as erroneous, set it aside, and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the defendant an opportunity to respond.
Reasoning: Consequently, the judgment being appealed is declared erroneous and is set aside. The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. thirty days to demur or answer as per G.S. 1-125.
General Appearance and Waiver of Jurisdictional Defectssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the defendant's appearance was a general appearance, which resulted in the waiver of any jurisdictional defects due to lack of service of summons.
Reasoning: The Court determines that the appearance made by defendant Fogarty Brothers Transfer, Inc. was not a special appearance as claimed, but rather a general appearance. This classification means that any defects related to the court's jurisdiction due to lack of service of summons have been waived.
Inapplicability of Cited Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellee's cited decisions were reviewed by the court and found to be inapplicable to the present case.
Reasoning: The decisions cited by the appellee were reviewed and found to be inapplicable.
Precedent and Controlling Authoritysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relied on the precedent set in In re Blalock to distinguish between special and general appearances, finding it relevant and controlling in the present case.
Reasoning: The decision references the case of In re Blalock, which is deemed controlling and relevant to the distinction between special and general appearances.