Marriner v. . Mizzelle

170 S.E. 650, 205 N.C. 204, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 504
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 20, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 S.E. 650, 205 N.C. 204, 1933 N.C. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marriner-v-mizzelle-nc-1933.