In re Snelgrove
| Citation | 182 S.E. 335,208 N.C. 670 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1935 |
| Docket Number | 668. |
| Parties | In re SNELGROVE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cumberland County; E. H. Cranmer, Judge.
Proceeding in the matter of Cary Eugene Snelgrove, an incompetent World War veteran, on petition of guardians to pay H. C. Blackwell attorney and coguardian, additional compensation for extraordinary services performed and expenses incurred in management of the ward's estate, opposed by the Veterans' Administration. From a judgment adopting the recommendations of the referee and denying respondent's petition for a writ of certiorari, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Application for certiorari must show freedom from laches in applying for writ, in cases where no appeal lies, and otherwise must show diligence in prosecuting appeal and merit, or that probable error was committed on hearing.
Petition by guardians of incompetent World War veteran to pay H. C Blackwell, attorney and coguardian, additional compensation in the sum of $600 for extraordinary services performed and expenses incurred in the management of the ward's estate.
The facts are these:
(1) The petition of the guardians was filed with the clerk of the superior court of Cumberland county, January 27, 1934 under authority of Code 1931, § 2202(12).
(2) This petition was allowed February 19, 1934, after hearing it being found that the amount requested was "a reasonable and fair compensation for such services and expenses."
(3) Notice of appeal by respondent, the Veterans' Administration, was given in open court, but apparently was not perfected due to some misunderstanding.
(4) Thereafter, on April 9, 1934, the respondent applied to the judge of the superior court for a writ of certiorari to bring up the case for review.
(5) Finally, after some crossfiring between the parties, the judge, at the May term, 1934, Cumberland superior court ordered that the disputed questions of law and fact be heard before Hon. Charles G. Rose, "referee for and on behalf of the court," who was directed to report to the judge not later than the first day of the June term, succeeding.
(6) The referee found that the respondent had not properly perfected its appeal from the order of the clerk, and recommended that the same be dismissed. He further recommended that, upon the merits of the case, the order of the clerk be affirmed.
(7) At the June term, 1934, the judge adopted the recommendations of the referee, and denied respondent's petition of April 9, for writ of certiorari.
From this ruling, the respondent a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lebedev
...declined to issue the writ based on defendant's failure to show "merit, or that probable error was committed" below. In re Snelgrove, 208 N.C. 670, 672, 182 S.E. 335, 336 (1935). IV. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's order. AFFIRMED. DILLON and ARROWOOD, Judges concur. ...