Twiddy v. . Mullen
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Special pboceeding, tried before Whedbee, J., at June Special Term, 1917, of PasquotaNK, upon this issue: 1. Was the judgment of J. 0. Small against George A. Twiddy, administrator of Stephen Mullen, rendered through fraud upon the part of the plaintiff, George A. Twiddy, administrator, or through collusion between the plaintiff and J. 0. Small? Answer: No. The court charged the jury: “If you believe the entire evidence in this ease, you will answer the first issue ‘No.’ ”…
Read the full summary
Special pboceeding, tried before Whedbee, J., at June Special Term, 1917, of PasquotaNK, upon this issue: 1. Was the judgment of J. 0. Small against George A. Twiddy, administrator of Stephen Mullen, rendered through fraud upon the part of the plaintiff, George A. Twiddy, administrator, or through collusion between the plaintiff and J. 0. Small? Answer: No. The court charged the jury: “If you believe the entire evidence in this ease, you will answer the first issue ‘No.’ ” Defendants excepted and appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
La tbe recent case of McNair v. Cooper, 174 N. C., 566, we said that “While the law invests an administrator with a certain discretion as to pleading the statute of limitations, it is required of him that he act in perfectly good faith, free from coercion, undue influence, or collusion; and where fraud and collusion are therein shown by and between him and a creditor of the estate, the heirs at law may set aside the judgment accordingly rendered and plead the statute in their own behalf.” We think the learned judge erred in holding that there is no evidence of collusion.
The administrator,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Pate v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- McNair v. . CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Williams v. MaitlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1840
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marshall v. . KempSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925