Sarah Reece v. . James Reece
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Motion to dismiss for want of a power of attorney, heard before Henry, Judge, at Fall Term, 1871, of "Watauga Superior Court. The action was brought in the name of plaintiff to use of Ilagerman.
Read the full summary
Motion to dismiss for want of a power of attorney, heard before Henry, Judge, at Fall Term, 1871, of "Watauga Superior Court. The action was brought in the name of plaintiff to use of Ilagerman. The complaint and answer was filed at Spring Term, 1871. At Fall Term, 1871, the defendant filed an affidavit stating that plaintiff’s name had been used without authority, and asked for a rule on Ilagerman, and the attorneys of record to show cause why the suit should not he dismissed for want of “authority to appear.” His Honor allowed Hagerman’s name to be erased. Plain-iff’s attorneys insisted…
1Opinion of the CourtBoydeN, J.
The defendants at tbe return term had an undoubted right to demand of the plaintiff’s counsel their authority for entering an appearance. Rev. Code, chap. 31, sec. 57, rule 16 of that section.
But if this demand for a power of attorney authorizing the counsel to enter an appearance had been made at the return term, it has been the universal practice to give time until the next term to produce and file his power of attorney or authority, and it is within the discretion of the Courut to grant this indulgence.
It has often been ruled on the circuit by the most distinguished Judges in our State,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Uncompahgre Canal Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1889
- Rowland v. . GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1873