Monger v. . Kelly

20 S.E. 374, 115 N.C. 294
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1894
StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.E. 374 (Monger v. . Kelly) 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
Monger v. . Kelly, 20 S.E. 374, 115 N.C. 294 (N.C. 1894).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

The first and second grounds of demurrer have been removed by the amendment óf the summons and complaint. The oral suggestion of counsel here that one of these amendments was made without his knowledge, and that no order for it appears in the record, cannot avail him. *295 We are bound by the record, and upon the maxim omnia presumuntur rite acta we must take it that the amendment was regularly made below. But if there was any inadvertence in that regard, the Court could allow the amendment to be made here. The Code, § 965; Grant v. Rogers, 94 N. C., 755; Hodge v. Railroad, 108 N. C., 24.

The third ground of demurrer is without merit. It is not requisite to show that the bond of the first administrator had been sued and exhausted. This would be to unconscionably delay the creditors of the estate who are entitled to be paid. The petition is sufficient in law. Shields v. McDowell, 82 N. C., 137; Brittain v. Dickson, 104 N. C., 547.

No Error.

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

Related

Shields v. . McDowell
82 N.C. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)
Brittain v. . Dickson
10 S.E. 701 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Grant v. . Rogers
94 N.C. 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
State ex rel. Hodge v. Marietta & North Georgia Railroad
108 N.C. 24 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E. 374, 115 N.C. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monger-v-kelly-nc-1894.