Latham v. . Bell
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mann v. Baker. (N.C. 1906)
- Lee v. . McKoy (N.C. 1896)
- Tulburt v. . Hollar (N.C. 1889)
- Brittain v. . Dickson (N.C. 1889)
- Smith v. . Brown (N.C. 1888)
- Smith v. Brown (N.C. 1888)
- Lilly v. . Wooley (N.C. 1886)
- Carlton v. . Byers (N.C. 1874)
- Thompson v. . Joyner (N.C. 1874)
- Donoho v. . Patterson (N.C. 1874)
- Thompson v. Joyner (N.C. 1874)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
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.