Stanley v. . Mason, Adm'r.

69 N.C. 1
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 69 N.C. 1 (Stanley v. . Mason, Adm'r.) 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
Stanley v. . Mason, Adm'r., 69 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1873).

Opinion

Reade, J.

The defendant resides, and took out letters of administration on the estate of his intestate in the county of Wake; *2 and the plaintiff resides and brought suit in the county of Craven. His Honor held that Craven county was the proper venue of the action. In this we think there was error.

It is said in support of his Honor’s ruling that the statute should be construed as if it read, all suits upon official bonds or against executors and administrators upon their bonds shall be brought in the .county where the bonds were given. And that suits against administrators or executors in their representative character, but not upon their bonds, may be brought as against other persons. But such does not seem to us to be the proper construction of the Act.

The object of the statute was to have suits against these persons, whether upon their bonds or not, in the county where they took out letters, and where they make their returns and settlements, and transact all the business of the estates in their hands.

C. C. P., sec. 69, provides that when an action is commenced in the wrong county it may be transferred for trial to the proper county. And in this case the defendant made two motions, one to dismiss and the other to remove to the county in which he resides and took out letters. To one or the other of these motions the defendant was clearly entitled.

There is error. This will be certified to the end that such further proceedings may be had as the law allows.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

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

Related

Lichtenfels v. North Carolina National Bank
132 S.E.2d 360 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1963)
Evans v. Morrow
64 S.E.2d 842 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Wiggins v. Finch
61 S.E.2d 72 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Godfrey v. Tidewater Power Co.
32 S.E.2d 27 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1944)
Montford v. . Simmons
136 S.E. 875 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
J. S. H. Clark Lumber Co. v. Currie
104 S.E. 654 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Craven v. . Munger
87 S.E. 216 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Cecil v. City of High Point
81 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Farmers' State Alliance v. Murrell
25 S.E. 785 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Wood v. . Morgan
24 S.E. 522 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
State Ex Rel. Clark v. Peebles
6 S.E. 798 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1888)
State Ex Rel. Cloman v. Staton
78 N.C. 235 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
Bidwell v. . King
71 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)
Steele v. Commissioners of Rutherford
70 N.C. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 N.C. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-v-mason-admr-nc-1873.