# Shelton v. Fairley > Court of Appeals of North Carolina · December 18, 1984 · 72 N.C. App. 1 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855484 ## Case - **Full name:** THOMAS M. SHELTON, III, ALAN CRAIG SHELTON and GEORGE C. COLLIE, Successor Trustee, of the Trust of Thomas M. Shelton, Deceased, Plaintiffs v. FRANCIS H. FAIRLEY, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Thomas M. Shelton, Deceased; FRANCIS H. FAIRLEY, S. DEAN HAMRICK, JAMES D. MONTEITH and LAWRENCE A. COBB, Individually and as FAIRLEY, HAMRICK, MONTEITH & COBB, a North Carolina Partnership, Defendants, and LOIS HOLT SHELTON WILSON and CATHERINE NORELL SHELTON EINHAUS, Additional Defendants - **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina - **Decided:** December 18, 1984 - **Citations:** 72 N.C. App. 1; 323 S.E.2d 410; 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3975 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Phillips - **Judges:** Whichard, Becton, Phillips - **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855484 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that summons and complaint personally delivered to one co-defendant at defendants’ offices did not meet requirements of Rule 4 (j)(l)(a) which requires that a copy of the summons and complaint be personally served on each defendant or left at each defendant’s residence… ## Opinion text Judge Phillips concurring. I agree with all that is stated in the well-reasoned opinion of the majority except that defendants Fairley, Monteith and Cobb were not served with process until they received copies of the alias and pluries summons issued on June 7, 1983. In my opinion, these defendants were duly served in July, 1982, when the summons for each of them was delivered to and accepted by their partner in the very offices where all of them practiced law together. The only purpose of the rules concerning the modes of serving process is to guarantee that defendants are notified in *15 some appropriate way of lawsuits filed against them. Since a defendant is duly served when a summons is left with some “discreet” adolescent at his house, it is inconceivable to me that he is not also served when the summons is delivered to his law partner at their place of business. When the purposes of the statute have been accomplished, as certainly was the case with these three defendants, reality, rather than technical wording, should control. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855484. Public record. Not legal advice.