State ex rel. Armfield v. Brown
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, (Suit on defendant’s bond as guardian of plaintiffs,) heard before his Honor, Judge Garmon, at Fall Term, 1873, of Row AN Superior Court. The case was referred, at Fall Term, 1869, to James E. Kerr, to state an account, &c., and on the 9th of August, 1873, the report of the referee was returned.
Read the full summary
Civil actioN, (Suit on defendant’s bond as guardian of plaintiffs,) heard before his Honor, Judge Garmon, at Fall Term, 1873, of Row AN Superior Court. The case was referred, at Fall Term, 1869, to James E. Kerr, to state an account, &c., and on the 9th of August, 1873, the report of the referee was returned. At Fall Term, 1873, the defendants excepted to the report of the referee, and filed in Court the following notice, which had been served, as stated: “ State, upon the relation of H. B. and M. S. Armfield, against John D. Brown and others. To Mess'rs Craige & Oraige and Me Corlde :…
1Opinion of the CourtBynum, J.
This was a civil action upon a guardian bond. Upon complaint and answer, at Fall Term, 1869, there was a reference for an Account. After taking proofs and hearing the parties, the referee made his report at Fall Term, 1873, when exceptions were filed by the defendants, who at the same time, upon due notice, demanded a trial by jury, upon the question of diligence, pursuant to chap. 59, sec. 2, of the acts of 1866-’67. This being refused by the Court, upon the ground that the notice was served too late, the defendants appealed. So the question to be determined is, were the defendants, as a…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Keystone Driller Co. v. WorthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Ex Parte HudsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
- Farmers' Nat. Bank of Tecumseh v. McCallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Tucker v. . SatterthwaiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Battle v. MayoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.