Grandy v. . Gulley
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Keziah v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company (N.C. 1968)
- Norfolk Southern R. v. Stricklin (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1920)
- County of Todd v. County of Morrison (Minn. 1931)
- Lipe v. . County of Stanly (N.C. 1930)
- Garris v. . Hardy (N.C. 1930)
- Garris v. Hardy (N.C. 1930)
- Lipe v. County of Stanly (N.C. 1930)
- Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Smith (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)
- Love v. United States (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1994)
- R. R. v. . Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1949)
- Carolina & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Piedmont Wagon & Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1949)
- Pruitt v. . Wood (N.C. 1930)
- Pruitt v. Wood (N.C. 1930)
- Finney v. . Corbett (N.C. 1927)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This controversy was submitted without action, under The Gode, Sec. 567, upon an agreed state of facts. We cannot enter into the merits of the controversy, for the reason that the affidavit required by the Statute was not made or does not appear in the record. This mode of proceeding is unknown to the common law, and unless, the positive requirement of the Statute is observed the court is without jurisdiction.
It must appear by affidavit that the court would have jurisdiction if the proceeding was by summons; also that the controversy is real and the proceeding is in good faith. Jones v. Commissioners, 88 N. C., 56; Arnold v. Porter, 119 N. C., 123.
In Bank v. Loan & Trust Co., 119 N. C., 553, on motion, the defendant being present in this court and not objecting, the plaintiff was allowed to file the required affidavit, and the court proceeded to hear the case.
Proceeding Dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.