Latham v. . Bell
Latham v. . Bell
69 N.C. 135
Latham v. . Bell
Opinion of the Court
In Badger v. Jones & Watson, 65 N. C. Rep. 305, it is said that “ for devastavit on the part of the previous administrator, the administrator de bonis non ought tore-, cover the value of the goods and effects wasted by an action on the bond of his predecessor.” That is decisive of this. *137 case. It is true that in the case cited the administrator de bonis non was allowed to sell the land without a suit upon the bond for the devastavit of personal property; but that was put expressly on the ground that the sureties to the-bond were insolvent, which is not alleged in the case before us.
There is no error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.