Smith v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Smith v. Anderson

17 S.C.L. 123

DecidedDecember 15, 1828

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.C.L. 123 (Smith v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Anderson, 17 S.C.L. 123 (N.C. Ct. App. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Colcock, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is not to be doubted, that the Court should always appoint a solvent person prochein amy of an infant plaintiff; for one of the objects of the appointment is to obtain a responsible person to answer for the costs: although in ordinary Cases any man, whether solvent, or insolvent, may commence an action in his own behalf. We cannot, however, rescind the order in this case; first, because it is not certain that the father is insolvent; and secondly, because, as the action has been brought, it may by possibility work an injury to the infant. But the defendant in the action is not without remedy ; for it is in the power of the Court, even after such an appointment has been made, upon proof of the insolvency of the prochein amy, to appoint another ; as is said in the case of Turner v. Turner, 1 Str. 708. see also 2 Sellon’s Pr. 68. Or if the father will give security [124]*124for the costs, although he is insolvent, the Court may appoint him, or continue him in office if he has been appointed.

Motion refused.

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

Colcock, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is not to be doubted, that the Court should always appoint a solvent person prochein amy of an infant plaintiff; for one of the objects of the appointment is to obtain a responsible person to answer for the costs: although in ordinary Cases any man, whether solvent, or insolvent, may commence an action in his own behalf. We cannot, however, rescind the order in this case; first, because it is not certain that the father is insolvent; and secondly, because, as the action has been brought, it may by possibility work an injury to the infant. But the defendant in the action is not without remedy ; for it is in the power of the Court, even after such an appointment has been made, upon proof of the insolvency of the prochein amy, to appoint another ; as is said in the case of Turner v. Turner, 1 Str. 708. see also 2 Sellon’s Pr. 68. Or if the father will give security [124]*124for the costs, although he is insolvent, the Court may appoint him, or continue him in office if he has been appointed.

Motion refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.C.L. 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-anderson-ncctapp-1828.