(a) When a cause is directed to be removed, the clerk shall transmit to the court to which it is removed a transcript of the record of the case, with the prosecution bond, bail bond, and the depositions, and all other written evidences filed therein; and all other proceedings shall be had in the county to which the place of trial is changed, unless otherwise provided by the consent of the parties in writing duly filed, or by order of court.
(b) After a cause has been directed to be removed, and prior to the time that the transcript is deposited with the court to which the cause is removed, depositions may be taken in the cause, and subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and commissions to take depositions may issue from either of the said courts, under the same rules as if the cause had been originally commenced in the court from which the subpoenas or commissions issued. (1806, c. 694, s. 12, P.R.; 1810, c. 787, P.R.; R.C., c. 31, s. 118; C.C.P., s. 69; Code, ss. 195, 198; Rev., s. 428; C.S., c. 474; 1967, c. 954, s. 3.)
§ 1-87.1. Repealed by Session Laws 1967, c. 954, s. 4.
§ 1-87.2: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.3: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.4: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.5: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.6: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.7: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.8: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.9: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.10: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 1-87.11: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 7A.
Application of Foreign Law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1953–2016 · leading case:
Jones v. Brinson, 78 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. 1953).
Jones v. Brinson, 78 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. 1953).
· cites it 10× “Thus, in the final analysis the plaintiffs' challenge to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Pamlico County rests on the contention that the actual filing in the Pamlico court of the order of remand was a sine que non to its recapture of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs'…”
Snow v. Yates, 392 S.E.2d 767 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 3× “See N.C.G.S. § 1-87 (Cum. Supp. 1989). Affirmed.”
Dechkovskaia v. Dechkovskaia, 780 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 9× “§ 50-3 governs venue.... If a spouse asserts the claim in some other action, N.”
Farmers Coop. Exch., Inc. v. Trull, 120 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. 1961).
“However, the clerk of the superior court of Wake County failed to transmit the record of the case to the superior court of Union County as directed by G.S. 1-87, nor did the defendant have it transmitted.”
Jones v. Brinson, 78 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. 1953).
· cites it 4× “The plaintiffs’ contention is untenable. It discloses a failure to give due consideration to (1) tbe basic distinctions between “jurisdiction” *509 and “venue,” and (2) the procedural requirements of G.”
Aldridge v. Kiger, 2016 NCBC 83 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2016).
“§ 1-87 (a) (emphasis added). Because all claims were brought in a single action in Union County, and Union County is an improper venue for the judicial dissolution claim, the entire action must be transferred to Mecklenburg County.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-87(a) — 1 case
Dechkovskaia v. Dechkovskaia, 780 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
“§ 50-3 governs venue.... If a spouse asserts the claim in some other action, N.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.