¶1 For the reasons set forth in the case of Bagley v. Wood, ante , 90, without examining into the testimony upon which the Superior Court acted, which we have no power to do, the orders of said court are affirmed upon the ground that we have no power to revise a discretionary judgment of the Superior Court except for error in law. Here none is shown.
¶2 PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
¶3 (NOTE. — The same point decided at this term in the case ofLeavitt v. Etheridge , from Currituck.)
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture APPEAL from Caldwell, J. , at JONES Spring Term, 1851.
Motion to remove the defendant from the guardianship of the infant children of Jonas Jones, deceased. The plaintiff is the mother of the wards and the defendant their grandfather. In the county court the judgment was that the defendant be removed and the plaintiff be appointed in his place. From this decision the defendant appealed to the Superior Court, where a motion was made by the counsel of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the defendant had no right to appeal. This was refused, and the plaintiff then insisted that the order of the county court removing the defendant from his guardianship ought to be confirmed unless the defendant showed that there was no error in law or in fact in said order. This was denied by the court upon the ground that the trial in that court was de novo . A motion was then submitted by the defendant to dismiss the proceeding for error in the rule and notice. This was overruled by the court. The case states that then the court proceeded to hear the whole matter upon evidence and witness introduced in court. And after hearing the whole matter, the court reversed the judgment of the county court removing the defendant
(99) from the guardianship of the infant children and declaring that he was the proper person to be their guardian, and directed a procedendo to be issued to the county court. Whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this Court. Source: CourtListener
