Moore v. Isley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
In the year 1817. the plaintiff and the defendant, together with Daniel Harvey and "William Dickey, became jointly and severally the sureties of one James B. Dickey, for the faithful discharge of his duties as guardian to the infant children of Henry Shut!., deceased; and, as such sureties, executed with their principal, the ordinary bonds required by law to be given by guardians.
Read the full summary
In the year 1817. the plaintiff and the defendant, together with Daniel Harvey and "William Dickey, became jointly and severally the sureties of one James B. Dickey, for the faithful discharge of his duties as guardian to the infant children of Henry Shut!., deceased; and, as such sureties, executed with their principal, the ordinary bonds required by law to be given by guardians. The said James, mismanaged and neglected the estates of his wards — was removed from his guardianship — became insolvent, and left the State. In the year 1824, suits were instituted upon these bonds against all the…
1Opinion
When this cause was heretofore heard everything was disposed of except the claim set up by the plaintiff to have an account and contribution from the defendant because of property of William Dickey, the supposed insolvent, and the defendant's intestate, which was alleged to have come to the hands of the defendant. Upon this part of the case we then forbore to decide, because we deemed it essential that Daniel Harvey should be made a party. The plaintiff hath since amended his bill, and therein stated that the said Daniel Harvey had died, and the plaintiff had duly administered on his estate,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. Richards.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901