Palmer v. Litherland

Circuit Court of North Carolina

Palmer v. Litherland

1 N.C. 160

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.C. 160 (Palmer v. Litherland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palmer v. Litherland, 1 N.C. 160 (circtnc 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.

When I was in the Common Bench, a question came before us, whether an administrator durante minore ætale, who wastes the goods, shall be charged after the infant comes of age. In 6 Rep. Packman’s case, it is agreed that he shall be charged without saying how; and afterwards in the Common Bench, that he shall be charged as executor de son tort.

Doderidge, J.

I deny this. For at all times he had a lawful power to administer.

I think like my brother Doderidge. He ought to be charged on the special matter. Postea 267. Noy, 86. 6 Co. 18.

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

JONES, J.

When I was in the Common Bench, a question came before us, whether an administrator durante minore ætale, who wastes the goods, shall be charged after the infant comes of age. In 6 Rep. Packman’s case, it is agreed that he shall be charged without saying how; and afterwards in the Common Bench, that he shall be charged as executor de son tort.

Doderidge, J.

I deny this. For at all times he had a lawful power to administer.

I think like my brother Doderidge. He ought to be charged on the special matter. Postea 267. Noy, 86. 6 Co. 18.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.C. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-litherland-circtnc-1793.