State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Houston

76 N.C. 375
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1877·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Reade, J.

The plaintiff guardian is one of the obligors in the bond sued on, it being the bond of a former guardian of the plaintiff’s wards. So that while the plaintiff is interested to effect a recovery for his wards, he is interested to-defeat a recovery against himself or which may enuro against himself.

This action could not be 'sustained' at law; and even in equity where it might be sustained, it would be necessary to have the interests of the wards protected by a disinterested personother than the plaintiff guardian.

So much of the demurrer as raises this point is sustained. And the case is remanded, to'the end that the wards may be made parties plaintiff and a proehein ami be appointed to protect their'interests.

There is error. Case will be remanded. Costs in this Court will be paid by plaintiff.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly.

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

State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Houston, 76 N.C. 375 (N.C. 1877).

76 N.C. 375 (State Ex Rel. Wilson v. Houston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cox v. Cox
234 S.E.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State Ex Rel. Moses v. Moses
169 S.E. 273 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Clark v. . Homes
128 S.E. 20 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
Clark v. Carolina Homes, Inc.
189 N.C. 703 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
George v. . High
85 N.C. 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)