Brendle v. Heron
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil action, in which the plaintiff, a minor, sue I by his guardian as a pauper, and which was heard before his Honor, Cannon, J., upon a motion to dismiss, at the Fall Term, 1872, of Haywood Superior Court. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in'the opinion of this Court.
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action, because:
1. No complaint had been filed. The Judge allowed plaintiff until the next day to file his complaint, which was done. This was certainly within his discretion.
2. No prosecution bond had been given. The plaintiff had been allowed to sue as a pauper by the Clerk of the Court. The question as to an adult plaintiff is decided in Rowark v. Gaston, 67 N. C. Rep. 291. It can make no difference that the plaintiff is an infant, who has no property except that in suit, who sues by a guardian -who is a pauper. See Anonymous, 1 Marsh, 4. (4 E. C. L. R.)…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rowark v. . GastonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Christian v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904