Morgan v. Morgan

215 N.C. 725
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 31, 1939·Published

Opinion

PeR Cueiam.

Absence of a necessary party may be taken advantage of by demurrer, Geitner v. Jones, 173 N. C., 591, 92 S. E., 493, but where amounts due are admitted or not controverted, tbe ward as against a demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes may follow guardianship funds, McNeill v. McBryde, 112 N. C., 408, 16 S. E., 841, and bold bondsman liable for any deficiency, without making representative of insolvent deceased guardian party. Humphrey v. Surety Co., 213 N. C., 651, 197 S. E., 137.

In case tbe amounts alleged to be due are controverted, see Moses v. Moses, 204 N. C., 657, 169 S. E., 273, and McNeill v. Currie, 117 N. C., 341, 23 S. E., 216.

Tbe rulings upon tbe demurrers will be upheld.

Affirmed.

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

Morgan v. Morgan, 215 N.C. 725 (N.C. 1939).

215 N.C. 725 (Morgan v. Morgan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McNeill v. . McBryde
16 S.E. 841 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)
McNeill v. . Currie
23 S.E. 216 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Geitner v. . Jones
92 S.E. 493 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. American Surety Co.
197 S.E. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Moses v. Moses
169 S.E. 273 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)