Gilliam v. Watkins
104 N.C. 180
Opinion
This action should have been brought by an administrator de bonis non. Tulburt v. Hollar, 102 N. C., 407; Merrill v. Merrill, 92 N. C., 657; Hardy v. Mills, 91 N. C., 131; University v. Hughes, 90 N. C., 538.
The demurrer, therefore, should have been sustained.
Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gilliam v. Watkins, 104 N.C. 180 (N.C. 1889).
104 N.C. 180 (Gilliam v. Watkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Spivey v. Godfrey
129 S.E.2d 253 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Rudisill v. Hoyle
118 S.E.2d 145 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Jones v. Wooten.
49 S.E. 915 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Ellyson v. Lord
99 N.W. 582 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)