County Court of Randolph v. Johnson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

County Court of Randolph v. Johnson

10 N.C. 238

DecidedDecember 5, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 10 N.C. 238 (County Court of Randolph v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

County Court of Randolph v. Johnson, 10 N.C. 238 (N.C. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

Haid, Judge.'

The act which passed in the year 1816, Rev. ch. 905. directs that the clerks of the County Courts shall issue summons, ex officio, against all guardians who shall fail to appear and exhibit their accounts at the-times required by law, and for such service shall be entitled to sixty cents; and the act passed in the year 1820, Rev. ch. 1039, directs notice to be given by way of scire facias to guardians who have failed to renew' their bonds as the law requires; but no provision is made in either of these acts, for either employing the state’s attorney, hr taxing a fee for his use; neither is any such provision made in the act of 1762, Rev. ch. 69. where the duty of guardians is fully prescribed and pointed out; nor can I find any provision for such taxation in any other law. I am, therefore, compelled to say, that judgment should be entered for the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Haid, Judge.'

The act which passed in the year 1816, Rev. ch. 905. directs that the clerks of the County Courts shall issue summons, ex officio, against all guardians who shall fail to appear and exhibit their accounts at the-times required by law, and for such service shall be entitled to sixty cents; and the act passed in the year 1820, Rev. ch. 1039, directs notice to be given by way of scire facias to guardians who have failed to renew' their bonds as the law requires; but no provision is made in either of these acts, for either employing the state’s attorney, hr taxing a fee for his use; neither is any such provision made in the act of 1762, Rev. ch. 69. where the duty of guardians is fully prescribed and pointed out; nor can I find any provision for such taxation in any other law. I am, therefore, compelled to say, that judgment should be entered for the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.C. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-court-of-randolph-v-johnson-nc-1824.