Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Morgan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 31, 1939Published

1Opinion of the Court

PeR Cueiam.

Absence of a necessary party may be taken advantage of by demurrer, Geitner v. Jones, 173 N. C., 591, 92 S. E., 493, but where amounts due are admitted or not controverted, tbe ward as against a demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes may follow guardianship funds, McNeill v. McBryde, 112 N. C., 408, 16 S. E., 841, and bold bondsman liable for any deficiency, without making representative of insolvent deceased guardian party. Humphrey v. Surety Co., 213 N. C., 651, 197 S. E., 137.

In case tbe amounts alleged to be due are controverted, see Moses v. Moses, 204 N. C., 657, 169…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McNeill v. . CurrieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. State Ex Rel. Moses v. MosesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. McNeill v. . McBrydeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  4. Geitner v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  5. State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. American Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API