Jones v. . Bullock
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The plaintiff averred in this bill, that one Radford Gooch, on whose estate he lias taken out letters of administration, was, in his life-time, guardian to the children of one Wheeler and of one Matierson, and has given ■bonds for the faithful discharge of the office — that the defendant Bullock was the surety to those bonds given for •the benefit of the Wheelers, and the defendant Jones to those for the benefit of'the Mattersons — that process on these bonds was sued out…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff averred in this bill, that one Radford Gooch, on whose estate he lias taken out letters of administration, was, in his life-time, guardian to the children of one Wheeler and of one Matierson, and has given ■bonds for the faithful discharge of the office — that the defendant Bullock was the surety to those bonds given for •the benefit of the Wheelers, and the defendant Jones to those for the benefit of'the Mattersons — that process on these bonds was sued out against him and the defend' ants, returnable to May term, 1824, of Granville County Court — that the defendants, being…
1Opinion of the Court
BaNxei, Judge.
After stating the pleadings and proofs, proceeded as follows: — First, as to the agreement, it is proved as set forth in the bill by the deposition of the counsel; but the law of this court requires two witnesses to contradict the denial of the answer. The deposition of the defendant, Jones, has been taken, subject to all just exceptions. Can this deposition be legally read? The plaintiff seeks no decree against Moses Jones, and it appears that the said witness has no interest of his own to be affected by any decree that may be rendered against Bullock. The plaintiff in this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hawkins v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1816