Calcagno v. . Overby
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Roberts Ex Rel. Perry v. Adventure Holdings, LLC (N.C. Ct. App. 2010)
- Goff v. Superior Courts in and for Counties of Pima and Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965)
- Nello L. Teer Co. v. Hitchcock Corp. (N.C. 1952)
- Wiggins v. Finch (N.C. 1950)
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
The motion for removal as a matter of right was denied by the court below on the ground that the motion was not made in apt time. It appeared that summons was served, and complaint filed 5 July, 1939. On August 4, 1939, the following order was entered by the clerk of the Superior Court: “Upon motion of defendant A. L. Overby, and by consent, it is ordered and adjudged that the defendant A. L. Overby shall have to and through August 23, 1939, to file answer in this action.” On 11 August, 1939, motions for removal were made by defendants Overby and Williams.
It is apparent that the motions to remove as a matter of right came too late. Defendant Overby’s motion and agreement to extend the time to file answer was an acceptance of the jurisdiction and waived the right *324 to remove on that ground. Garrett v. Bear, 144 N. C., 23, 56 S. E., 479; McIntosh Prac. & Proc., 280. Defendant 'Williams’ motion was made after the time for answering had expired. C. S., 470; Lumber Co. v. Arnold, 179 N. C., 269, 102 S. E., 409.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.