Marriner v. . Mizzelle

170 S.E. 650, 205 N.C. 204, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 504
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 20, 1933·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pes Cukiak.

It does not appear from the pleadings in this proceeding that the surety on the bond filed by plaintiff as guardian is a necessary party to this proceeding. It is not alleged in the answer filed by the defendants that there has been a breach of the bond. At most the surety is only a proper party. The motion of the defendants that the surety be made a party was addressed to the discretion of the court. McIntosh N. C. Practice & Procedure, page 185. For this reason, the refusal of the court to- allow the motion is not reviewable by this Court. The appeal by the defendants is

Dismissed.

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

Marriner v. . Mizzelle, 170 S.E. 650, 205 N.C. 204, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 504 (N.C. 1933).

170 S.E. 650 (Marriner v. . Mizzelle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Overton v. Tarkington
106 S.E.2d 717 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)