Maggett v. Roberts

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Citation: Maggett v. Roberts, 108 N.C. 174, 12 S.E. 890 (N.C. 1891)
• Decision Date: 16 February 1891
• Parties: MAGGETT v. ROBERTS et al.
• Writing for the Court: CLARK, J., (after stating the facts as above.)

12 S.E. 890

108 N.C. 174

MAGGETT v. ROBERTS et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 16, 1891

This is an appeal from WOMACK, J., at January term, 1890, of Northampton superior court. The action was begun in the superior court in the name of the state on the relation of Maggett against Roberts, the register of deeds of said county, and his sureties upon his official bond. The complaint alleged three several and distinct causes of action, to-wit: The first cause of action for the penalty of $200, given by Code, § 1819, for not recording the substance of the license issued by him for the marriage of William Parker and Mary Sykes; the second cause of action, for the like penalty of $200, under the same section, for not recording the substance of the license for the marriage of John Harris and Cinda Garner; and the third cause of action for the penalty of $200, under Code, § 1816, for issuing license for the marriage of Roxana Lassiter to Henry Futrell without the consent of her mother, the said Roxana being under the age of 18 years, and residing with her mother, her father being unknown. The relator, upon proper affidavit and certificate, was allowed to sue in forma pauperis. The defendant demurred, and assigned as grounds of the demurrer (1) That the action was improperly brought in the name of the state. (2) That there was a misjoinder of causes of action in that three penalties, concerning three different causes of action are sued for in one action. (3) For that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that it fails to allege that a return was made on the marriage licenses alleged to have been issued for the marriages of William Parker and Mary Sykes and of John Harris and Cinda Garner to the defendant Roberts during his term of office, or when any such return was made, and fails to state that any return of either of said marriage licenses was ever made to the defendant Roberts while he was register of deeds and that it fails to allege that the defendant Roberts knew, or had reasonable grounds to know, that there was any impediment in the way of the marriage of Henry Futrell and Roxana Lassiter; or that he knew, or had reason to know, that said Roxana was under 18 years of age; or that the said Roberts failed to use due diligence to ascertain the age of the said Roxana. For that it appears on the face of the complaint that the marriage of the two couples...