State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Simonton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil AotioN, in the nature of a Quo Warranto tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Ihedell Superior Court, befere Cloud, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff upon the representations of parties interested under C. C. P. § 366, to annul the charter of the Bank of Statesville.
Read the full summary
Civil AotioN, in the nature of a Quo Warranto tried at Fall Term, 1877, of Ihedell Superior Court, befere Cloud, J. This action was brought by the plaintiff upon the representations of parties interested under C. C. P. § 366, to annul the charter of the Bank of Statesville. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the complaint for want of an answer, and thereupon T. L. Patterson and others being judgment creditors of the Bank asked leave to interplead, which was refused upon the ground that as a matter of law the motion could not be entertained. The complaint alleged substantially upon…
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
This is an action in the nature of quo warranto seeking to vacate and annul a charter creating a corpora tion to be called the Bank of Statesville. Some of the defendants disclaimed being stockholders or officers of the corporation. The others submitted to a judgment by default. Rending the proceedings, Patterson and others claiming to bo judgment creditors of the Bank, applied to be allowed to interplead on behalf of their several interests-The Judge refused to allow them to do so on the ground that by the law he had no authority.
We do not know what construction he put on sections 61 and 65…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Dobson v. . SimontonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Marshall-Wells Co. v. KramlichIdaho Supreme Court · 1928
- Heath, Morrow & Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Bank of Statesville v. SimontonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Marshall-Wells Co. v. KramlichIdaho Supreme Court · 1928