Davis Ex Rel. Snow v. Somerville

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Davis Ex Rel. Snow v. Somerville

15 N.C. 382

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1834

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 N.C. 382 (Davis Ex Rel. Snow v. Somerville) 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

Davis Ex Rel. Snow v. Somerville, 15 N.C. 382 (N.C. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Daniee-, Judge.

This guardian bond'was taken under and by virtue of the act of 1762, (Beu. c. 69. sec. 7.) whieh directs a guardian bond to be made payable to the “justices present in Court, the survivor or survivors of them, their executors or administrators.” It has been argued by the plaintiff’s counsel that the justices who were present in Court, (one of whom was the defendant,) when the appointment of the guardian and execution of tfie b6nd took place, were a quasi corporation for that particular purpose, and although the defendant was one of the corporators, yet he in his individual character, might give a bond to the corporation, and it would bind him.

In the case of the Justices of Currituck v Dozier, (ante 3. vol. p. 287,) where the case stated that Dozier was both obligor and obligee with others named in the guardian bond, this Court said, “a guardian bond according to the statute is nothing more than a common law bond payable to individuals and their personal representatives, in trust for another, that Dozier was both obligor and obligee, and the bond was void. It seems to us that the aboveinentioned case, and that of The Justices v Bonner, (ante 3 vol.p 289) which is in all things similar, must govern the one now before the Court. — • This case comes within the rule laid down by the Court in the cases of The Justices v Shannonhouse, (ante 2 col. p. 6.) and The Justices v Armstrong, (Ib. 3. vol. 284. )

We think the judgment must be affirmed.

Ter Curiam. — Judgment aeeirmeb. "

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

Daniee-, Judge.

This guardian bond'was taken under and by virtue of the act of 1762, (Beu. c. 69. sec. 7.) whieh directs a guardian bond to be made payable to the “justices present in Court, the survivor or survivors of them, their executors or administrators.” It has been argued by the plaintiff’s counsel that the justices who were present in Court, (one of whom was the defendant,) when the appointment of the guardian and execution of tfie b6nd took place, were a quasi corporation for that particular purpose, and although the defendant was one of the corporators, yet he in his individual character, might give a bond to the corporation, and it would bind him.

In the case of the Justices of Currituck v Dozier, (ante 3. vol. p. 287,) where the case stated that Dozier was both obligor and obligee with others named in the guardian bond, this Court said, “a guardian bond according to the statute is nothing more than a common law bond payable to individuals and their personal representatives, in trust for another, that Dozier was both obligor and obligee, and the bond was void. It seems to us that the aboveinentioned case, and that of The Justices v Bonner, (ante 3 vol.p 289) which is in all things similar, must govern the one now before the Court. — • This case comes within the rule laid down by the Court in the cases of The Justices v Shannonhouse, (ante 2 col. p. 6.) and The Justices v Armstrong, (Ib. 3. vol. 284. )

We think the judgment must be affirmed.

Ter Curiam. — Judgment aeeirmeb. "

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.C. 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-ex-rel-snow-v-somerville-nc-1834.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack