State Ex Rel. Shuster v. Perkins
This text of 46 N.C. 325 (State Ex Rel. Shuster v. Perkins) 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.
Opinion
We are inclined to think, as it was proven that Miranda was the only orphan of Henry Taff, the mistake in calling her “Margaret” upon the minute docket, might be controlled by the general description which is added, i. e., “ orphan of Henry Taff,” or, at all events, that the defendant was estopped under the authority of Iredell v. Barbee, 9 Ired. 250. Without deciding these points, we are clearly of opinion, that the case falls within the operation of the statute, acts of 1842, ch. 61. A guardian has an appointment as distinguished from an office. The statute uses both terms, and the bond, in the words of the statute, “was taken under the sanction of a Court of Record, and purports to be a bond executed to the State, for the performance of a duty belonging to an appointment.” So, the caso is embraced by the words of the statute; and it certainly falls within the mischief intended to be remedied. Persons claiming under guardian bonds, as well as persons claiming un *327 der tbe bonds of sheriffs and constables, frequently lost their rights by reason of some defect in the manner of taking the bonds.
Judgment reversed. Venire de novo.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 N.C. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-shuster-v-perkins-nc-1854.