Latham v. . Bell
This text of 69 N.C. 135 (Latham v. . Bell) 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.
Opinion
In Badger v. Jones & Watson, 65 N. C. Rep. 305, it is said that “ for devastavit on the part of the previous administrator, the administrator de bonis non ought tore-, cover the value of the goods and effects wasted by an action on the bond of his predecessor.” That is decisive of this. *137 case. It is true that in the case cited the administrator de bonis non was allowed to sell the land without a suit upon the bond for the devastavit of personal property; but that was put expressly on the ground that the sureties to the-bond were insolvent, which is not alleged in the case before us.
There is no error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
69 N.C. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-bell-nc-1873.