State Ex Rel. Trotter v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was AN action, in the nature of a quo warranto, brought to try title to the office of public administrator, and tried before Hoke, J, and a jury, at May Term, 1894, of Guilford Superior Court.
Read the full summary
This was AN action, in the nature of a quo warranto, brought to try title to the office of public administrator, and tried before Hoke, J, and a jury, at May Term, 1894, of Guilford Superior Court. The pleadings show that the. relator of the plaintiff was, on the 17th of July, 1889, duly appointed public administrator in and for Guilford County for the term of eight years, and gave the required bond, which was renewed on the 2d February, 1891. That he failed to renew his bond in February, 1893, and on the 30th day of January, 1894, the Clerk of the Superior Court, without issuing any notice…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam:
We think that the order of removal on the ground that the relator had failed to renew his bond, was, under the circumstances of this case, not only irregular but void. The relator’s office of Public Administrator was a property fight, and it is well settled that he cannot be deprived thereof but by the law of the land. In Vann v. Pipkin, 77 N. C., 408, it was held that although the statute declared that the failure of a Sheriff to renew his bond and produce receipts, &c., should create a vacancy, such vacancy was not in fact created until so declared by a competent tribunal, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State Ex Rel. Vann v. PipkinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- Linderholm v. EkbladSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914