Opinion
(Filed 27 September, 1939.)
1. Appearance § 2b —
The general appearance of a defendant renders immaterial the writ of attachment as a basis for the service of summons by publication.
2. Venue § 1d — When both parties are nonresidents and no other rule governing venue is germane, plaintiff may maintain action in any county of the State.
In this action on a judgment of another state, plaintiff's attachment of lands of defendant situate in a county in this State was rendered immaterial by defendant's general appearance. The court found that both parties are nonresidents. Held: Plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action in any court of this State she might designate, and defendant's motion to remove to the county in which the real estate attached is situate and of which he asserted he is a resident, was properly denied.
APPEAL by defendant from Rousseau, J., in Chambers, 3 February, 1939. From POLK. Affirmed.
Massenburg, McCown Alledge for plaintiff, appellee.
Kirkpatrick Kirkpatrick for defendant, appellant.
Civil action on a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Kitsap County, State of Washington, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, in which the defendant appeared and moved to remove the cause for trial to Mecklenburg County.
Plaintiff sues to recover on a judgment rendered in the State of Washington in the sum of $10,000 and the sum of $250, attorney fees, and costs. Service of summons was had by publication and was based on an ancillary writ of attachment against real property of the defendant, located in Mecklenburg County. The defendant bases his motion upon the contention that he is a resident of Mecklenburg County and that the action involves real estate located in said county.
The court below, having found from the evidence that the defendant is a nonresident of the State, denied the defendant's motion. Defendant excepted and appealed.
The general appearance of the defendant renders the writ of attachment immaterial as a basis for the service of summons by publication. The court found, on competent evidence, that both the plaintiff and defendant are nonresidents of North Carolina. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to maintain her action in any county in this State she might designate. C. S., 469.
Affirmed.