Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 N.C. 359

Young v. . Young

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1884

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1884-10-05

Civil Action tried at Spring Term, 1884, of Granville Superior Court, before McKoy, J. On October 80th, 1866, Russell H. Kingsbury and wife by deed for the recited consideration of twenty-five hundred dollars, paid by Peter W. Young, conveyed to the latter in fee a certain lot of land in the town of Oxford, to be held upon the following uses and trusts as therein declared, to-wit: For the sole, separate and exclusive use and benefit of Jane Eliza Young, wife of said Peter W.…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1999

3 state decisions

20188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, C. X,

¶1 after stating the case. • We should not feel much hesitancy in giving our construction of the trusts contained in the deed, but forbear to do so because the case is not properly constituted in court, and the matter is not before us.

¶2 No jurisdiction can be acquired over infant defendants except by the service of process.upon them, and no authority resides in the court to appoint a guardian ad litem,. This was strongly intimated in the opinion of the court delivered by Rodman, J., in Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C., 504, and declared in positive and emphatic terms by Bynum, J., in Moore v. Gidney, 75 N. C., 34.

¶3 ‘ His language is this: “ Where infant defendants, in a civil action or special proceeding, have no general or testamentary guardian, before a guardian ad litem can be appointed, a summons must be served upon such infant, and a copy of the complaint, with the summons, must be served or filed according to law.”

¶4 To secure protection to infant defendants in suits, this court adopted a rule, when the rules were last revised, that “all motions for a guardian ad litem shall be made in writing, and the court shall appoint such guardian; only after due inquiry as to the fitness of the person to.be appointed; and such guardian must ■ file an answer in every case.” Rule of Practice in Superior Courts, 89 N. C., 612.

¶5 These requirements, have been entirely disregarded in the present case, and precipitate action, had in the superior *363 court, which we cannot recognize and uphold, without a surrender of all the safeguards which the law throws around an infant for the protection of his interests.

¶6 The cause must be remanded to the superior court of Granville county, and it is so ordered.

¶7 Remanded. •

/91/nc/359 · .json · Public domain