Jones v. . Drake

Superior Court of North Carolina

Jones v. . Drake

3 N.C. 237

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1803·Published

Opinion

doubted; but applying to Baker to know how the practice was, and he saying it was to serve the bill on the infant only, his Honor then appoint him a guardian to answer that bill. There is no necessity to serve the guardian with a new bill. And counsel cited 1 Harrison, 474, and Kay v.Black, in this Court.

NOTE. — The court of equity has power to appoint the clerk and master guardian to infant defendants to appear and answer for them, even against his consent. Muir v. Stuart, 5 N.C. 440. *Page 220

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

doubted; but applying to Baker to know how the practice was, and he saying it was to serve the bill on the infant only, his Honor then appoint him a guardian to answer that bill. There is no necessity to serve the guardian with a new bill. And counsel cited 1 Harrison, 474, and Kay v.Black, in this Court.

NOTE. — The court of equity has power to appoint the clerk and master guardian to infant defendants to appear and answer for them, even against his consent. Muir v. Stuart, 5 N.C. 440. *Page 220

Jones v. . Drake, 3 N.C. 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 1803).

Pincite

3 N.C. 237 (Jones v. . Drake) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related