Crawley v. Woodfin
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 4 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | State on relation of NANCY CRAWLEY v. N. W. WOODFIN, Administrator, and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION tried at November Special Term, 1877, of BURKE Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
The facts are sufficiently stated by Mr. Justice RODMAN in delivering the opinion of this Court. The defendant who had previously demurred, withdrew his demurrer, and the defendant's counsel then moved upon the complaint and the original answer to dismiss the case. His Honor declined to grant the motion and the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller & Ashe, for plaintiff .
Messrs. G. N. Fo??k, R. F. Armfield, and D. G. Fowle, for defendant .
This action was commenced on the 3d of October, 1874. The original defendants were N. W. Woodfin, administrator of McDowell, R. M. Pearson, N. W. Woodfin, administrator of John W. Woodfin, and W. F. McKesson. Pearson having died, his executor was made a party in this Court.
The complaint alleges in substance, that at Spring Term, 1869, of Burke Superior Court, the relator recovered a judgment against N. W. Woodfin, administrator of McDowell, and that a part of it is still unpaid. That McDowell died in 1859; N. W. Woodfin was appointed his administrator, and gave bond in the usual form with Pearson, McKesson, and John W. Woodfin, as his sureties. The relator assigns as a breach, that N. W. Woodfin, the administrator, received a large amount of personal property, more than sufficient to have paid all the debts of McDowell, and the costs of administration, and that he failed to pay the debt to the relator, but delivered the property to the legatees without taking refunding bonds, to the damage of the relator, &c.
At Spring Term, 1875, N. W. Woodfin and Pearson filed separate answers. The plaintiff replied. At Fall Term, 1875, the death of N. W. Woodfin was suggested, and it was ordered that notice issue to his administrator. At Spring Term, 1876, the administrator of N. W. Woodfin, and the administrator de bonis non of McDowell, were made parties. The plaintiff then by leave of the Court amended the complaint by assigning as a further breach the non-payment of the note upon which the aforesaid judgment was recovered. The note was dated the 28th of December, 1858, and payable one day after date.
At Fall Term, 1876, Pearson, not abandoning his answer, demurs to the amended complaint and alleges as ground, that John Gray Bynum, the administrator de bonis non of McDowell, is the only proper relator in an action on the administration bond of Woodfin, and the relator Crawley, cannot maintain the action. At a Special Term in November, 1877, the defendant Pearson withdrew his demurer, and moved to dismiss the action, which motion was refused, and the defendants appealed to this Court.
It has been several times held in this Court that no appeal will lie from the refusal of a motion to dismiss an action, or to non-suit a plaintiff. Stith v. Lookabill, 71 N. C. 25; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Bailey
... ... Marlow, 65 N.C. 696; Mitchell v. Kilburn, 74 ... N.C. 483; Perry v. Whitaker, 77 N.C. 202; Foster ... v. Penry, 77 N.C. 160; Crawley v. Woodfin, 78 ... N.C. 4; McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 412; Capel ... v. Peebles, 80 N.C. 90; Long v. Bank, 81 N.C ... 41; Gay v. Brookshire, ... ...
-
Thomas v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources
...the courts of this State and the federal courts have generally refrained from addressing questions deemed moot. See, e.g., Crawley v. Woodfin, 78 N.C. 4, 4 (1878); Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 132-33, 40 L.Ed. 293, 293-94 (1895). In State court, the exclusion of moot que......
-
Anderson v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
...over a century, our state courts and the federal courts have largely refused to address questions deemed moot. See, e.g., Crawley v. Woodfin, 78 N.C. 4, 6 (1878) ; Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293, 293–94 (1895). While the mootness doctrine has been formula......
-
McKinney v. Patterson
... ... judgment, he may suffer a nonsuit, and, by appeal, have the ... correctness of the ruling reviewed," citing Crawley ... v. Woodfin, 78 N.C. 4, and Gregory v. Forbes, ... 94 N.C. 221 ... The ... same rule was applied in Midgett v ... ...